# Texas Files Lawsuit at SCOTUS Against GA, PA, MI, and WI



## JimBowie1958

Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!









						Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
					

Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.




					www.breitbart.com
				




*Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​


> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​


​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​


----------



## JimBowie1958

Kobach: Texas Case Challenges Election Directly at Supreme Court
					

On Monday, just before midnight, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit at the Supreme Court that is the most important election challenge yet.




					www.breitbart.com
				




*On Monday, just before midnight, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit that is far more important than all of the others surrounding the presidential election of November 3rd.*​​*Texas brought a suit against four states that did something they cannot do: they violated the U.S. Constitution in their conduct of the presidential election. And this violation occurred regardless of the amount of election fraud that may have resulted. The four defendant states are Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.*​​*Texas filed the suit directly in the Supreme Court. Article III of the Constitution lists a small number of categories of cases in which the Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction.”  One of those categories concerns “Controversies between two or more states.” Texas’s suit is exactly that. The Supreme Court has opined in the past that it may decline to accept such cases, at its discretion.  But it is incumbent upon the high court to take this case, especially when it presents a such a cut-and-dried question of constitutional law, and when it could indirectly decide who is sworn in as President on January 20, 2021.*​​*The Texas suit is clear, and it presents a compelling case. The four offending states each violated the U.S. Constitution in two ways.*​​*First, t**hey violated the Electors Clause of Article II of the Constitution when executive or judicial officials in the states changed the rules of the election without going through the state legislatures.** The Electors Clause requires that each State “shall appoint” its presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”*​​*In the early years of the Republic, most state legislatures appointed their presidential electors directly, without holding a popular election for President. That would change during the early decades of the nineteenth century. But the constitutional principle remained the same.  Regardless of whether a state appoints its electors by a vote in the legislature or by a vote of the people, it is the state legislature — and only the state legislature — that sets the rules.*​​*Thus, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended by three days the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots, contrary to the law passed by the state legislature, the state court changed the rules in violation of the Electors Clause. Similarly, when Georgia’s Secretary of State responded to a lawsuit by entering into a Compromise Settlement Agreement and Release (i.e. a consent decree) with the Democratic Party of Georgia, and modified the signature verification requirements spelled out by Georgia law, that changing of the rules violated the Electors Clause.*​​*The second constitutional violation occurred when individual counties in each of the four states changed the way that they would receive, evaluate, or treat the ballots.** Twenty years ago, in the landmark case of Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when one Florida county treated ballots one way, and another Florida county treated ballots a different way. Voters had the constitutional right to have their ballots treated equally from county to county.*​​*So when election officials in Wayne County, Michigan, ignored the requirements of Michigan law and denied poll watchers access to vote counting, while other counties in Michigan followed the law, that violated the Equal Protection Clause.  Similarly, in Wisconsin, when the Administrator of the City of Milwaukee Elections Commission ignored the requirements of Wisconsin law and directed election workers to write in the addresses of witnesses on the envelopes containing mail-in ballots, while ballots without witness addresses were deemed invalid elsewhere, that resulted in the unequal treatment of ballots in the state.*​


----------



## busybee01

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
Click to expand...


`


----------



## busybee01

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
Click to expand...


Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.


----------



## Lysistrata

This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.


----------



## MeBelle

*STOP trolling the thread.   You know who you are.*


----------



## Lysistrata

MeBelle said:


> *STOP trolling the thread.   You know who you are.*



Commenting on the standing issue on a thread about a lawsuit is "trolling"? Establishing standing to bring a lawsuit is a make-or-break issue in any civil case.


----------



## Claudette

Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.


----------



## LeftofLeft

busybee01 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
Click to expand...


Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.


----------



## JGalt

Lysistrata said:


> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.



You do know the reason Texas is doing this, don't you?  States can sue each other for a number of reasons but when this happens, *states can skip the trial court and go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. *

Slick move, Texas.


----------



## Dogbiscuit

Lysistrata said:


> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.


Here is one example of where the SC looked at such a case.









						Supreme Court splits on allowing states to sue each other
					

The justices were divided 4-4 on the question.




					thehill.com
				




One could easily argue the difference in circumstances between the two, but considering the volatility of our current events, Id say that the SC will definitely be looking at and considering all options.
I wonder if any other states will climb aboard the Trump train ???


----------



## MeBelle

Lysistrata said:


> MeBelle said:
> 
> 
> 
> *STOP trolling the thread.   You know who you are.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commenting on the standing issue on a thread about a lawsuit is "trolling"? Establishing standing to bring a lawsuit is a make-or-break issue in any civil case.
Click to expand...


No.   

Questioning moderator actions on the open board is another issue.


----------



## Mac1958

Lysistrata said:


> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.


Gotta keep the base happy, gotta keep Trump happy, gotta keep the tithes coming in to the slush fund.


----------



## iceberg

like I've said since day 1, you can't just do as you wish with the election process. the fraud is obvious as that's WHY they did this.

But they are going to lose in court because they simply ASSUMED too. much power outside of process.


----------



## martybegan

Lysistrata said:


> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.



They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.


----------



## JLW

The moron with an Augusto Pinochet avatar is advocating a coup d’etat. Will wonders never cease?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
Click to expand...

lol

So much for "state's rights."


----------



## martybegan

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
> 
> So much for "state's rights."
Click to expand...


That's why Texas went to the SC, to protect the rights of it's citizens to a fair EC process. 

Note they are not trying to prove fraud, they are trying to say the processes these States used to circumvent normal election law due to COVID made the votes insecure.


----------



## MeBelle

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> So much for "state's rights."




Perfect C_Clayton_Jones 

You just showed your lack of proficiency of the US Constitution.

Take a bow! You deserve it!


----------



## iceberg

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
> 
> So much for "state's rights."
Click to expand...

states trampled over our rights to change laws outside of process and checks and balances. 

eat it.


----------



## Camp

MeBelle said:


> *STOP trolling the thread.   You know who you are.*


Can this be explained without causing repercussions from the moderator?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
Click to expand...


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

martybegan said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
> 
> So much for "state's rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why Texas went to the SC, to protect the rights of it's citizens to a fair EC process.
> 
> Note they are not trying to prove fraud, they are trying to say the processes these States used to circumvent normal election law due to COVID made the votes insecure.
Click to expand...

Taking legal action over suspect election irregularities is a coup...

...but spying on an opposition campaign using the FISA courts, "wire tapping" the Trump administration, setting up sham prosecutions of Trump appointees to force Trump to resign, and trying unsuccessfully multiple times to impeach on bullshit grounds, is not a coup.

It all makes sense.

Just like a person with a swinging Dick is a woman, or one of the 80+ made up genders.


----------



## MeBelle

Camp said:


> MeBelle said:
> 
> 
> 
> *STOP trolling the thread.   You know who you are.*
> 
> 
> 
> Can this be explained without causing repercussions from the moderator?
Click to expand...


Sure!   PM me for questions.


----------



## DukeU

At least some of our leaders have spines.

Thank you Texas for standing up for the Constitution.


----------



## iceberg

Camp said:


> MeBelle said:
> 
> 
> 
> *STOP trolling the thread.   You know who you are.*
> 
> 
> 
> Can this be explained without causing repercussions from the moderator?
Click to expand...

see the usual suspects not talking the topic but trolling people and attacking their viewpoints, not the topic.


----------



## Care4all

Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud. 

People calling it fraud are way off base.

Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?  

After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?

I do not think so.

And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?

Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?

There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.


----------



## DukeU

Care4all said:


> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.


There is only one way to legally change voting laws, and these states did NOT do it THAT way. They went around the state legislatures and used the courts to Unconstitutionally change the laws.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

We cannot not allowing cheating democrats to ignore the Constitution

Biden cannot and will not cheat his way to the Presidency


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Care4all said:


> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.



Do you ever read the articles?  Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?


----------



## iceberg

Care4all said:


> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.


please show me how this system of voting by mail was setup and tested LONG BEFORE the election.

you can't just go changing laws and making up your own and demand people follow. you can't change an entire election process for President because you "want" to.

"will of the people" - we're seeing hundreds of thousands of ILLEGAL VOTES and each one takes away from someone who legally voted. why are you not WILL OF THE PEOPLE for those who are having their votes taken away from them as well?

because you only care about what YOU PERSONALLY want and are willing to bend light and laws to get there.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lysistrata said:


> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.


You need to go back to law school.


----------



## Christ_on_a_croissant

If you bootlickers really think that the SCOTUS is going to overrule state law to turn over the election process to the state legislatures, you’re out of your fucking minds


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

It's clear that the Democrat Party has violated the Voting Rights of millions of American citizens


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Christ_on_a_croissant said:


> If you bootlickers really think that the SCOTUS is going to overrule state law to turn over the election process to the state legislatures, you’re out of your fucking minds



Obama said the exact same thing!!

"Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."  Obama "Law Professor" April 2012


----------



## PoliticalChic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever read the articles?  Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?
Click to expand...




You want 'em to READ??????

OMG....next thing, you'll be having 'em think!


----------



## two_iron

My beloved Texas is a "Fuck around and find out" kind of place....

You have fucked around.


----------



## Christ_on_a_croissant

CrusaderFrank said:


> Christ_on_a_croissant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you bootlickers really think that the SCOTUS is going to overrule state law to turn over the election process to the state legislatures, you’re out of your fucking minds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama said the exact same thing!!
> 
> "Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."  Obama "Law Professor" April 2012
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges


----------



## iceberg

Christ_on_a_croissant said:


> If you bootlickers really think that the SCOTUS is going to overrule state law to turn over the election process to the state legislatures, you’re out of your fucking minds


great.

if you boot lickers think we're going to sit back and watch you cheat your asses off, you're out of your fucking minds.

wheee. we can do this all day long.


----------



## Christ_on_a_croissant

iceberg said:


> Christ_on_a_croissant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you bootlickers really think that the SCOTUS is going to overrule state law to turn over the election process to the state legislatures, you’re out of your fucking minds
> 
> 
> 
> great.
> 
> if you boot lickers think we're going to sit back and watch you cheat your asses off, you're out of your fucking minds.
> 
> wheee. we can do this all day long.
Click to expand...

There was no widespread fraud, you fucking simpleton. No judge has seen credible evidence. No state attorney general that Trump lost has agreed.

You’re all a bunch of sore losers who, like children, think that if you whine enough, you’ll get your way.

It’s over. Trump, and people like you, are causing serious damage to the 
integrity of our elections.


----------



## Christ_on_a_croissant

two_iron said:


> My beloved Texas is a "Fuck around and find out" kind of place....
> 
> You have fucked around.


I was born and raised in TX. This lawsuit is a joke. Texas isn’t going to overturn the results of the election


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

In new lawsuit, Texas contests election results in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania
					

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" in the Electoral College. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, experts say.




					www.texastribune.org
				




*"Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" in the Electoral College. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud --  In the suit, he claims that pandemic-era changes to election procedures in those states violated federal law, and asks the U.S. Supreme Court to block the states from voting in the Electoral College."*

In a brilliant move, Paxton does the same thing Democrats did back when they were filing lawsuits all over the place to stop Trump from being inaugurated....so what's fair is fair right??

Nevermind the fact that the election laws in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan were passed by their own state legislatures, but Texas knows better...even tho when they tried to challenge their own state's election laws, they were laughed out of court...but anything for the God-King Trump...

We will all pretend this never happened later anyways, so why not....


----------



## iceberg

Christ_on_a_croissant said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ_on_a_croissant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you bootlickers really think that the SCOTUS is going to overrule state law to turn over the election process to the state legislatures, you’re out of your fucking minds
> 
> 
> 
> great.
> 
> if you boot lickers think we're going to sit back and watch you cheat your asses off, you're out of your fucking minds.
> 
> wheee. we can do this all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no widespread fraud, you fucking simpleton. No judge has seen credible evidence. No state attorney general that Trump lost has agreed.
> 
> You’re all a bunch of sore losers who, like children, think that if you whine enough, you’ll get your way.
> 
> It’s over. Trump, and people like you, are causing serious damage to the
> integrity of our elections.
Click to expand...

well since it's obvious you don't know what "integrity" means your opinion doesn't mean much.

all i hear is "SINCE YOU WON'T GIVE ME MY WAY YOU SUCK YOU BIG MEANIE".

and makes you what, 3 years old?

have a day.


----------



## the other mike




----------



## Toro

This is all Kabuki Theater for the rubes, to show that they are "fighting" for their Orange God.

Here's the explanation why this is DOA.


----------



## Christ_on_a_croissant

iceberg said:


> Christ_on_a_croissant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ_on_a_croissant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you bootlickers really think that the SCOTUS is going to overrule state law to turn over the election process to the state legislatures, you’re out of your fucking minds
> 
> 
> 
> great.
> 
> if you boot lickers think we're going to sit back and watch you cheat your asses off, you're out of your fucking minds.
> 
> wheee. we can do this all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no widespread fraud, you fucking simpleton. No judge has seen credible evidence. No state attorney general that Trump lost has agreed.
> 
> You’re all a bunch of sore losers who, like children, think that if you whine enough, you’ll get your way.
> 
> It’s over. Trump, and people like you, are causing serious damage to the
> integrity of our elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well since it's obvious you don't know what "integrity" means your opinion doesn't mean much.
> 
> all i hear is "SINCE YOU WON'T GIVE ME MY WAY YOU SUCK YOU BIG MEANIE".
> 
> and makes you what, 3 years old?
> 
> have a day.
Click to expand...

So, “I know you are but what am I”, is your response.

Run along, kid.


----------



## Moonglow

under Georgia law. A statute enacted in 1960 prohibits the Georgia General Assembly from choosing delegates to the Electoral College except in cases where an election cannot be held. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp to state legislators: Picking own presidential electors 'not an option'...

You will find that the other states have the same rule or they did go through the legislatures....


----------



## Rogue AI

Christ_on_a_croissant said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ_on_a_croissant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you bootlickers really think that the SCOTUS is going to overrule state law to turn over the election process to the state legislatures, you’re out of your fucking minds
> 
> 
> 
> great.
> 
> if you boot lickers think we're going to sit back and watch you cheat your asses off, you're out of your fucking minds.
> 
> wheee. we can do this all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no widespread fraud, you fucking simpleton. No judge has seen credible evidence. No state attorney general that Trump lost has agreed.
> 
> You’re all a bunch of sore losers who, like children, think that if you whine enough, you’ll get your way.
> 
> It’s over. Trump, and people like you, are causing serious damage to the
> integrity of our elections.
Click to expand...

There is no integrity in an election in which votes are not held to the same standard for all voters in the states in question.


----------



## TNHarley

OMG. Either put up the evidence in court or SHUT THE FUCK UP


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Toro said:


> This is all Kabuki Theater for the rubes, to show that they are "fighting" for their Orange God.
> 
> Here's the explanation why this is DOA.


Does this Twitter thread reinforce what Trumpers already want to believe?

If not, they won't read it....

What does Parler think?


----------



## Moonglow

Angelo said:


>


Try dealing with hard, cold facts instead of these dealers in dementia...


----------



## BluesLegend

Christ_on_a_croissant said:


> There was no widespread fraud, you fucking simpleton.



Correct, the massive election fraud was concentrated in a few Dem counties.


----------



## the other mike

Moonglow said:


> Try dealing with hard, cold facts instead of these dealers in dementia...


I'll take my chances, cartoon-brain.


----------



## Dogbiscuit

Christ_on_a_croissant said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ_on_a_croissant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you bootlickers really think that the SCOTUS is going to overrule state law to turn over the election process to the state legislatures, you’re out of your fucking minds
> 
> 
> 
> great.
> 
> if you boot lickers think we're going to sit back and watch you cheat your asses off, you're out of your fucking minds.
> 
> wheee. we can do this all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no widespread fraud, you fucking simpleton. No judge has seen credible evidence. No state attorney general that Trump lost has agreed.
> 
> You’re all a bunch of sore losers who, like children, think that if you whine enough, you’ll get your way.
> 
> It’s over. Trump, and people like you, are causing serious damage to the
> integrity of our elections.
Click to expand...

Donald J Trump has taken the Constitution of the United States, dampened it ever so slightly so that its still pliable, grabbed it tightly with both hands and continues to slowly tighten it around the proverbial neck of the Democratic party. 
Texas is just helping out a bit, hope you dont mind if we take our country back.


----------



## Moonglow

Angelo said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try dealing with hard, cold facts instead of these dealers in dementia...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take my chances, cartoon-brain.
Click to expand...

Who is the dork in yer avi? Is he, she, it part of the discussion?


----------



## mdk

Attorney General Paxton wants to seek higher office one day and he knows he’ll need the aid of President Trump’s most ardent supporters and sycophants. That’s the only reason this laughably far-fetched lawsuit was filed.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

mdk said:


> Attorney General Paxton wants to seek higher office one day and he knows he’ll need the aid of President Trump’s most ardent supporters and sycophants. That’s the only reason this laughably far-fetched lawsuit was filed.


Elected republicans show time and time again how little respect they have for the intellect of their voters....


----------



## candycorn

Biff_Poindexter said:


> In new lawsuit, Texas contests election results in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania
> 
> 
> Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" in the Electoral College. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, experts say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" in the Electoral College. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud --  In the suit, he claims that pandemic-era changes to election procedures in those states violated federal law, and asks the U.S. Supreme Court to block the states from voting in the Electoral College."*
> 
> In a brilliant move, Paxton does the same thing Democrats did back when they were filing lawsuits all over the place to stop Trump from being inaugurated....so what's fair is fair right??
> 
> Nevermind the fact that the election laws in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan were passed by their own state legislatures, but Texas knows better...even tho when they tried to challenge their own state's election laws, they were laughed out of court...but anything for the God-King Trump...
> 
> We will all pretend this never happened later anyways, so why not....


Stupid is as Texas does.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Biff_Poindexter said:


> In the suit, he claims that pandemic-era changes to election procedures in those states violated federal law, and asks the U.S. Supreme Court to block the states from voting in the Electoral College."
> Nevermind the fact that the election laws in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan were passed by their own state legislatures, but Texas knows better...even tho when they tried to challenge their own state's election laws, they were laughed out of court.


My home is in Tennessee. I should allow the State legislatures in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan decide who my President is? Bullspit. This is a federal-not State-election.


----------



## Christ_on_a_croissant

Dogbiscuit said:


> Christ_on_a_croissant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ_on_a_croissant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you bootlickers really think that the SCOTUS is going to overrule state law to turn over the election process to the state legislatures, you’re out of your fucking minds
> 
> 
> 
> great.
> 
> if you boot lickers think we're going to sit back and watch you cheat your asses off, you're out of your fucking minds.
> 
> wheee. we can do this all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no widespread fraud, you fucking simpleton. No judge has seen credible evidence. No state attorney general that Trump lost has agreed.
> 
> You’re all a bunch of sore losers who, like children, think that if you whine enough, you’ll get your way.
> 
> It’s over. Trump, and people like you, are causing serious damage to the
> integrity of our elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Donald J Trump has taken the Constitution of the United States, dampened it ever so slightly so that its still pliable, grabbed it tightly with both hands and continues to slowly tighten it around the proverbial neck of the Democratic party.
> Texas is just helping out a bit, hope you dont mind if we take our country back.
Click to expand...

Texas isn’t going to do shit to overturn the results of the “most secure election” in modern history


----------



## airplanemechanic

GREAT!!

Now the SCOTUS has to take this up.


----------



## Christ_on_a_croissant

Texas ought to look into their own issues









						Who is Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general accused of bribery and abuse of office?
					

Paxton said Monday he wouldn’t resign. Here’s what we know so far about the latest allegations against Texas’ top legal official.




					www.texastribune.org


----------



## Dogbiscuit

Christ_on_a_croissant said:


> Dogbiscuit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ_on_a_croissant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ_on_a_croissant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you bootlickers really think that the SCOTUS is going to overrule state law to turn over the election process to the state legislatures, you’re out of your fucking minds
> 
> 
> 
> great.
> 
> if you boot lickers think we're going to sit back and watch you cheat your asses off, you're out of your fucking minds.
> 
> wheee. we can do this all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no widespread fraud, you fucking simpleton. No judge has seen credible evidence. No state attorney general that Trump lost has agreed.
> 
> You’re all a bunch of sore losers who, like children, think that if you whine enough, you’ll get your way.
> 
> It’s over. Trump, and people like you, are causing serious damage to the
> integrity of our elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Donald J Trump has taken the Constitution of the United States, dampened it ever so slightly so that its still pliable, grabbed it tightly with both hands and continues to slowly tighten it around the proverbial neck of the Democratic party.
> Texas is just helping out a bit, hope you dont mind if we take our country back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas isn’t going to do shit to overturn the results of the “most secure election” in modern history
Click to expand...

Your right, but our justices might.
I wuv u too.


----------



## airplanemechanic

martybegan said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
> 
> So much for "state's rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why Texas went to the SC, to protect the rights of it's citizens to a fair EC process.
> 
> Note they are not trying to prove fraud, they are trying to say the processes these States used to circumvent normal election law due to COVID made the votes insecure.
Click to expand...


And they are absolutely right. 

This way they don't have to prove someone got into the vault, they only must show that they left the door unlocked.


----------



## iceberg

Christ_on_a_croissant said:


> Dogbiscuit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ_on_a_croissant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ_on_a_croissant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you bootlickers really think that the SCOTUS is going to overrule state law to turn over the election process to the state legislatures, you’re out of your fucking minds
> 
> 
> 
> great.
> 
> if you boot lickers think we're going to sit back and watch you cheat your asses off, you're out of your fucking minds.
> 
> wheee. we can do this all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no widespread fraud, you fucking simpleton. No judge has seen credible evidence. No state attorney general that Trump lost has agreed.
> 
> You’re all a bunch of sore losers who, like children, think that if you whine enough, you’ll get your way.
> 
> It’s over. Trump, and people like you, are causing serious damage to the
> integrity of our elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Donald J Trump has taken the Constitution of the United States, dampened it ever so slightly so that its still pliable, grabbed it tightly with both hands and continues to slowly tighten it around the proverbial neck of the Democratic party.
> Texas is just helping out a bit, hope you dont mind if we take our country back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas isn’t going to do shit to overturn the results of the “most secure election” in modern history
Click to expand...

you can say this a million times, no one believes it.


----------



## Turtlesoup

busybee01 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
Click to expand...

Bull shit----------the dems making up thousands of fraudulent votes to steal election certainly harms everyone else in other states as it is used to steal elections and in this case puts a communist sell out Joe biden in to sell us all down the river not to mention allows him and his family to continue to rape little girls.   It harms texas....and florida.....and alaska and everyone else.


----------



## Christ_on_a_croissant

Dogbiscuit said:


> Christ_on_a_croissant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogbiscuit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ_on_a_croissant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ_on_a_croissant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you bootlickers really think that the SCOTUS is going to overrule state law to turn over the election process to the state legislatures, you’re out of your fucking minds
> 
> 
> 
> great.
> 
> if you boot lickers think we're going to sit back and watch you cheat your asses off, you're out of your fucking minds.
> 
> wheee. we can do this all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no widespread fraud, you fucking simpleton. No judge has seen credible evidence. No state attorney general that Trump lost has agreed.
> 
> You’re all a bunch of sore losers who, like children, think that if you whine enough, you’ll get your way.
> 
> It’s over. Trump, and people like you, are causing serious damage to the
> integrity of our elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Donald J Trump has taken the Constitution of the United States, dampened it ever so slightly so that its still pliable, grabbed it tightly with both hands and continues to slowly tighten it around the proverbial neck of the Democratic party.
> Texas is just helping out a bit, hope you dont mind if we take our country back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas isn’t going to do shit to overturn the results of the “most secure election” in modern history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your right, but our justices might.
> I wuv u too.
Click to expand...

You’re all living in a fantasy


----------



## airplanemechanic

Christ_on_a_croissant said:


> Texas ought to look into their own issues
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general accused of bribery and abuse of office?
> 
> 
> Paxton said Monday he wouldn’t resign. Here’s what we know so far about the latest allegations against Texas’ top legal official.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org



Ahh, the smell of deflection in the morning.


----------



## danielpalos

Texas has no standing to impugn the integrity or full faith and credit of those great and sovereign States.


----------



## danielpalos

9thIDdoc said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the suit, he claims that pandemic-era changes to election procedures in those states violated federal law, and asks the U.S. Supreme Court to block the states from voting in the Electoral College."
> Nevermind the fact that the election laws in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan were passed by their own state legislatures, but Texas knows better...even tho when they tried to challenge their own state's election laws, they were laughed out of court.
> 
> 
> 
> My home is in Tennessee. I should allow the State legislatures in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan decide who my President is? Bullspit. This is a federal-not State-election.
Click to expand...

How secure was your State?  We should start alleging widespread fraud in your State.


----------



## DrLove

Well of course - Texas has every right to change election laws in all 57 states because, you know ... TEXAS! 
Good lord, when will Republicans stop embarrassing themselves?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

danielpalos said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the suit, he claims that pandemic-era changes to election procedures in those states violated federal law, and asks the U.S. Supreme Court to block the states from voting in the Electoral College."
> Nevermind the fact that the election laws in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan were passed by their own state legislatures, but Texas knows better...even tho when they tried to challenge their own state's election laws, they were laughed out of court.
> 
> 
> 
> My home is in Tennessee. I should allow the State legislatures in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan decide who my President is? Bullspit. This is a federal-not State-election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How secure was your State?  We should start alleging widespread fraud in your State.
Click to expand...

Allege away if you think so. Totally beside my point.


----------



## Papageorgio

Biff_Poindexter said:


> In new lawsuit, Texas contests election results in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania
> 
> 
> Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" in the Electoral College. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, experts say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" in the Electoral College. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud --  In the suit, he claims that pandemic-era changes to election procedures in those states violated federal law, and asks the U.S. Supreme Court to block the states from voting in the Electoral College."*
> 
> In a brilliant move, Paxton does the same thing Democrats did back when they were filing lawsuits all over the place to stop Trump from being inaugurated....so what's fair is fair right??
> 
> Nevermind the fact that the election laws in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan were passed by their own state legislatures, but Texas knows better...even tho when they tried to challenge their own state's election laws, they were laughed out of court...but anything for the God-King Trump...
> 
> We will all pretend this never happened later anyways, so why not....



As you said, 2016 opened a whole new can of worms and I expect this to continue on into future elections. I do what most normal people do and ignore the whole thing because it is a waste of time. Just like when the next Republican House will file for impeachment of a Democratic President. 

Just like the last impeachment a colossal waste of time and money for a bunch of political egos.


----------



## DrLove

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is all Kabuki Theater for the rubes, to show that they are "fighting" for their Orange God.
> 
> Here's the explanation why this is DOA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this Twitter thread reinforce what Trumpers already want to believe?
> 
> If not, they won't read it....
> 
> What does Parler think?
> View attachment 426589
Click to expand...


Patriot L should move to Russia, Turkey or Hungary ... IMMEDIATELY!


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the suit, he claims that pandemic-era changes to election procedures in those states violated federal law, and asks the U.S. Supreme Court to block the states from voting in the Electoral College."
> Nevermind the fact that the election laws in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan were passed by their own state legislatures, but Texas knows better...even tho when they tried to challenge their own state's election laws, they were laughed out of court.
> 
> 
> 
> My home is in Tennessee. I should allow the State legislatures in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan decide who my President is? Bullspit. This is a federal-not State-election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How secure was your State?  We should start alleging widespread fraud in your State.
Click to expand...


Go right ahead, waste your time and money, you seem to think you are smarter than any of us.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

DrLove said:


> Well of course - Texas has every right to change election laws in all 57 states because, you know ... TEXAS!
> Good lord, when will Republicans stop embarrassing themselves?


Who will make them pay for it?

Their voters?? Nope...

They are embarrassing themselves for their voters....

and when this is said and done, I guarantee you that these folks will get pissed if you ever remind them


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Biff_Poindexter said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course - Texas has every right to change election laws in all 57 states because, you know ... TEXAS!
> Good lord, when will Republicans stop embarrassing themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will make them pay for it?
> 
> Their voters?? Nope...
> 
> They are embarrassing themselves for their voters....
> 
> and when this is said and done, I guarantee you that these folks will get pissed if you ever remind them
Click to expand...

Apparently you would prefer the people nationwide to pay for those States' "right" to defraud the the rest of the rest the United States. Voting fraud affects *all* Americans.


----------



## Papageorgio

Biff_Poindexter said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attorney General Paxton wants to seek higher office one day and he knows he’ll need the aid of President Trump’s most ardent supporters and sycophants. That’s the only reason this laughably far-fetched lawsuit was filed.
> 
> 
> 
> Elected republicans show time and time again how little respect they have for the intellect of their voters....
Click to expand...


I think that both parties have shown time again how little respect they have for the intellect of their voters. Consider the last two elections, Trump, Clinton and Biden. Oh wait, most of us voted for them. I guess we aren’t that smart.


----------



## DrLove

9thIDdoc said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course - Texas has every right to change election laws in all 57 states because, you know ... TEXAS!
> Good lord, when will Republicans stop embarrassing themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will make them pay for it?
> 
> Their voters?? Nope...
> 
> They are embarrassing themselves for their voters....
> 
> and when this is said and done, I guarantee you that these folks will get pissed if you ever remind them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you would prefer the people nationwide to pay for those States' "right" to defraud the the rest of the rest the United States. Voting fraud affects *all* Americans.
Click to expand...


You mean the "voter fraud" that 50 judges have laughed out of court - THAT voter fraud?


----------



## busybee01

Claudette said:


> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.



There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and federal judges have said they have provided no proof.


----------



## Claudette

busybee01 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and federal judges have said they have provided no proof.
Click to expand...


Seems Texas has plenty of proof. Lets see what the Texas Supreme Court does. I'd say the SC will be getting the case, how bout you??


----------



## busybee01

LeftofLeft said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
Click to expand...


The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.


----------



## Skylar

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
Click to expand...


Its more theater for dipshits.

First, Texas doesn't have standing for the election laws in other states. This alone ends any viable legal challenge. But wait, there's more!

Second, the States  in question have found no violations of their own election laws. The issues have been adjudicated. Killing the legal challenge again. But lets kick the dead horse, shall we?

Third, if this were genuinely a constitutional challenge to mail in ballots and not a political stunt, Texas would have filed suit against ALL states that used mail in ballots. Including, say, California. They didn't. They targeted only the swing States. Stripping the suit of even its internal logic.

Fourth, the Doctrine of Laches. If Texas genuinely felt that these changes would have invalidated Texas votes, they could have filed suit months and months ago. Instead, they waited to see results of the election. And only then filed suits based on those results. That's not how the law works. If the harm is in the process, you don't want to see if you like the results of the process before you sue.

Fifth, there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud that the suit's logic is predicated on.

Sixth, the remedy that Texas is seeking is extreme. Delaying the electoral vote itself? Disenfranchising tens of millions of voters? Its absolutely unprecedented. Extreme remedies require extreme evidence. _And Texas has none._

Seventh, waiting until the Safe Harbor day to file the suit demonstrates that Texas has no real interest in pursuing their suit. As they waited until the last possible moment to file, when their suit had the least possibility of being heard and the remedy offered.


----------



## Skylar

Claudette said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and federal judges have said they have provided no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems Texas has plenty of proof. Lets see what the Texas Supreme Court does. I'd say the SC will be getting the case, how bout you??
Click to expand...


The Texas Supreme Court? What relevance would the Texas Supreme Court have for votes in another State?


----------



## busybee01

martybegan said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
Click to expand...


No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.


----------



## Claudette

busybee01 said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
Click to expand...


All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.


----------



## Claudette

Skylar said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and federal judges have said they have provided no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems Texas has plenty of proof. Lets see what the Texas Supreme Court does. I'd say the SC will be getting the case, how bout you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Texas Supreme Court? What relevance would the Texas Supreme Court have for votes in another State?
Click to expand...


They are the ones issuing the charges which they have the right to do. From what I've read those states didn't follow the Constitution in relation to ballots and mail in ballots. Its in another thread. Look it up.


----------



## LeftofLeft

busybee01 said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
Click to expand...


The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
> 
> So much for "state's rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why Texas went to the SC, to protect the rights of it's citizens to a fair EC process.
> 
> Note they are not trying to prove fraud, they are trying to say the processes these States used to circumvent normal election law due to COVID made the votes insecure.
Click to expand...


Its a silly suit. 

First, they lack standing. Second, if they genuinely had a problem with the process, they would have sued months and months ago. Instead, they waited to see how the 'corrupted' process worked out for them and only then sued? The Doctrine of Laches will do a merry jig on the corpse of this DOA suit.


----------



## Skylar

LeftofLeft said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
Click to expand...


The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit


----------



## progressive hunter

Skylar said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
Click to expand...

you would do better if you read it first,,


----------



## Skylar

Claudette said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
Click to expand...


That's not how the Supreme Court works. You don't 'pass' cases to it. You request a writ of certiorari. And the Supreme Court decides if they'll grant the writ.


----------



## busybee01

Turtlesoup said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull shit----------the dems making up thousands of fraudulent votes to steal election certainly harms everyone else in other states as it is used to steal elections and in this case puts a communist sell out Joe biden in to sell us all down the river not to mention allows him and his family to continue to rape little girls.   It harms texas....and florida.....and alaska and everyone else.
Click to expand...


The courts have found nothing to substantiate any claim Trump ia making.


----------



## Skylar

Claudette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and federal judges have said they have provided no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems Texas has plenty of proof. Lets see what the Texas Supreme Court does. I'd say the SC will be getting the case, how bout you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Texas Supreme Court? What relevance would the Texas Supreme Court have for votes in another State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are the ones issuing the charges which they have the right to do. From what I've read those states didn't follow the Constitution in relation to ballots and mail in ballots. Its in another thread. Look it up.
Click to expand...


The Texas Supreme Court has no right to issue 'charges'. They are an appeals court. 

And the Texas Supreme Court has no right to issue 'charges' on other States. They are an appeals court exclusive to the State of Texas.


----------



## busybee01

Claudette said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
Click to expand...


They don't just pass things. There has to be constitutional issues.


----------



## martybegan

busybee01 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
Click to expand...


Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.


----------



## busybee01

LeftofLeft said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
Click to expand...


We can also talk about the corruption of the Post Office. Trump deliberately tried to slow down the mail so a few days extension was more than justified.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
> 
> So much for "state's rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why Texas went to the SC, to protect the rights of it's citizens to a fair EC process.
> 
> Note they are not trying to prove fraud, they are trying to say the processes these States used to circumvent normal election law due to COVID made the votes insecure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a silly suit.
> 
> First, they lack standing. Second, if they genuinely had a problem with the process, they would have sued months and months ago. Instead, they waited to see how the 'corrupted' process worked out for them and only then sued? The Doctrine of Laches will do a merry jig on the corpse of this DOA suit.
Click to expand...


They have Standing, disputes between States is one of the few functions the SC handles directly. 

They couldn't sue until they could show harm, and that is only after the election.


----------



## Claudette

busybee01 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't just pass things. There has to be constitutional issues.
Click to expand...


There are. Find the thread and read it. Its on this board.


----------



## busybee01

martybegan said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
Click to expand...


They have not. There have been no illegal changes.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
Click to expand...


Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.

Texas is demanding the Supreme Court overrule  Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.

_Good luck with that._


----------



## martybegan

busybee01 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not. There have been no illegal changes.
Click to expand...


Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.


----------



## busybee01

Claudette said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't just pass things. There has to be constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are. Find the thread and read it. Its on this board.
Click to expand...


There are no constitutional issues.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
Click to expand...


So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally. 

A circular argument from a circle jerk.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Johnlaw said:


> The moron with an Augusto Pinochet avatar is advocating a coup d’etat. Will wonders never cease?


"Coup d'etat" in crook speak means stopping the theft of the presidential election through the Supreme Court.
Go change your diapers, little baby. Crying will do you no good.


----------



## Lysistrata

Is this lawsuit being brought on behalf of the citizens of Texas or is it a use of public resources to advance the interests of a political party?

What other states have the Texas government officials examined? Any that certified their election for trump? Did they find any irregularities in the counties located in the state of Texas itself? How about Florida? Ohio? Indiana?

FYI: the rules for poll watchers in Michigan:
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/SOS_ED_2_CHALLENGERS_77017_7.pdf

Rundown by state:

National Conference of State Legislatures

What Texas is trying to do is to disenfranchise millions of voters in these four other states, all on behalf of a political candidate. Would the 5,259,126 Texans who voted for Biden approve of their government doing this using their resources?


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
Click to expand...


Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'. 

So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States. 

So where is the violation?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

iceberg said:


> see the usual suspects not talking the topic but trolling people and attacking their viewpoints, not the topic.


A small cabal of angry pissed off children doing  their best to hijack the thread and this issue.


----------



## BlindBoo

"Hail Mary full of Grace the L....."

Texas also is asking the supreme court to delay the 14 December deadline for electoral college votes to be cast.

Paul Smith, a professor at Georgetown University’s law school, said Texas did not have a legitimate basis to bring the suit.

“There is no possible way that the state of Texas has standing to complain about how other states counted the votes and how they are about to cast their electoral votes,” Smith said.

Trump’s campaign and his allies have pursued unsuccessful lawsuits in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and other states, making unfounded claims of widespread election fraud. Judges appointed under Democratic and Republican administrations, including Trump’s, have ruled against the president’s campaign, often in excoriating tones.

Trump lost those four states after winning them in 2016.

The supreme court is not obligated to hear the case and has said in previous decisions that its “original jurisdiction” that allows litigation between states to be filed directly with the nine justices should be invoked sparingly.









						Texas sues four states over election results in effort to help Donald Trump
					

Long-shot lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin is latest legal effort intended to reverse Biden’s victory




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## busybee01

martybegan said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not. There have been no illegal changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.
Click to expand...


State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.


----------



## Skylar

BlindBoo said:


> "Hail Mary full of Grace the L....."
> 
> Texas also is asking the supreme court to delay the 14 December deadline for electoral college votes to be cast.
> 
> Paul Smith, a professor at Georgetown University’s law school, said Texas did not have a legitimate basis to bring the suit.
> 
> “There is no possible way that the state of Texas has standing to complain about how other states counted the votes and how they are about to cast their electoral votes,” Smith said.
> 
> Trump’s campaign and his allies have pursued unsuccessful lawsuits in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and other states, making unfounded claims of widespread election fraud. Judges appointed under Democratic and Republican administrations, including Trump’s, have ruled against the president’s campaign, often in excoriating tones.
> 
> Trump lost those four states after winning them in 2016.
> 
> The supreme court is not obligated to hear the case and has said in previous decisions that its “original jurisdiction” that allows litigation between states to be filed directly with the nine justices should be invoked sparingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas sues four states over election results in effort to help Donald Trump
> 
> 
> Long-shot lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin is latest legal effort intended to reverse Biden’s victory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com



Its just theater for dipshits. 

Texas has no standing. The Doctrine of Laches nukes the case again. The focus only on swing states rather than all states with such mail in ballot 'issues' demonstrates its political, not legal. The remedy being demanded is wildly extreme. The evidence to support that remedy, non-existent. 

This is a big bucket of nothing.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
Click to expand...


The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch. 

Why are you so scared of all this?


----------



## AZrailwhale

Care4all said:


> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.


If they wanted to change the legally determined electoral process that that have been using for decades in most cases, the democrats should have gone through the legislative process.  This was another example of democrats wanting to rule by fiat, not by law.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Christ_on_a_croissant said:


> If you bootlickers really think that the SCOTUS is going to overrule state law to turn over the election process to the state legislatures, you’re out of your fucking minds


No, like in Bush V Gore, SCOTUS would be ENFORCING state law.  None of the affected states passed laws changing election procedures.


----------



## martybegan

busybee01 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not. There have been no illegal changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.
Click to expand...


The US constitution says State legislatures set the rules for Presidential elector selection, and thus the elections. State judges can't override that.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?


Gee..you are so "sharp" I'm surprised you can't figure this out...*not really.*

Texas won't be ruling on the election violations of other states. The Supreme Court will.
If five states are allowed to pervert election law then the entire body of laws that rule and govern our
national elections are nuked and Texas has a right to protect the laws that govern them as well as every other state in the union.

State officials in five states have preemptively taken it upon themselves to *unilaterally* change election law.
I've said all along the Supreme Court would be the remedy for election theft by Biden and his swine.

I just never saw Texas providing a clear path to removing all this trash.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
Click to expand...


So no violation. That was easy.

And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not. There have been no illegal changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US constitution says State legislatures set the rules for Presidential elector selection, and thus the elections. State judges can't override that.
Click to expand...


Who said that the state judges 'overruled' the State Legislatures? Not even the Texas suit does that.


----------



## AZrailwhale

busybee01 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and federal judges have said they have provided no proof.
Click to expand...

The proof is very simple, the affected states changed election procedures in violation of their own laws by executive fiat.  That isn't even open to argument, the proof is in the record.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
Click to expand...


The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation. 

Are you using a modification of the too big to fail defense?


----------



## martybegan

AZrailwhale said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and federal judges have said they have provided no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The proof is very simple, the affected states changed election procedures in violation of their own laws by executive fiat.  That isn't even open to argument, the proof is in the record.
Click to expand...


or Judicial fiat.


----------



## Skylar

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> 
> 
> Gee..you are so "sharp" I'm surprised you can't figure this out...*not really.*
> 
> Texas won't be ruling on the election violations of other states. The Supreme Court will.
> If five states are allowed to pervert election law then the entire body of laws that rule and govern our
> national elections are nuked and Texas has a right to protect the laws that govern them as well as every other state in the union.
Click to expand...


And who determines if election laws of a given state were correctly implemented? The respective state courts.

Texas has no say in any of it.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
Click to expand...


Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.

And the Texas AG's assessments of the court rulings of OTHER STATES is legally meaningless. As Texas has neither standing nor authority over the election laws of any state but itself.

This is theater for dipshits, Marty.


----------



## Claudette

AZrailwhale said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and federal judges have said they have provided no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The proof is very simple, the affected states changed election procedures in violation of their own laws by executive fiat.  That isn't even open to argument, the proof is in the record.
Click to expand...


That it is.


----------



## Claudette

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
Click to expand...


Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look??? And if they did see it do you think they would point their failing out to one and all?? Or that they did in on purpose and hoped no one caught on??

Would you like to be found guilty of unconstitutional behavior in a very important election?? I sure wouldn't.


----------



## BlindBoo

DukeU said:


> There is only one way to legally change voting laws











						Michigan Makes Positive Election Law Changes | Bipartisan Policy Center
					

The Michigan legislature recently passed two bipartisan election laws and sent them to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) for her signature. Election officials initiated these…




					bipartisanpolicy.org
				




While Michigan voters expanded mail ballot options to all voters by referendum in 2018, the state legislature did not make corresponding upstream and downstream policy changes to the election ecosystem that would facilitate a quicker, more efficient count. The Bipartisan Policy Center’s Task Force on Elections made several recommendations in January 2020 that align, in part, with those adopted in Michigan on September 24.

The bill package offers enhanced security for mail ballots, more processing time, correction of common voter errors, and better access for overseas military personnel and their spouses.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
Click to expand...


The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning. 

"We did it, and we say it's OK we did it"

It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.


----------



## LeftofLeft

busybee01 said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can also talk about the corruption of the Post Office. Trump deliberately tried to slow down the mail so a few days extension was more than justified.
Click to expand...


Bring it on. Let's have an investigation.


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
Click to expand...


Fortunately for the country, the Supreme Court doesn't decide whether there is harm based on "Some ignorant twat on the Internet likes the results and thinks that means everything's okay."


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

busybee01 said:


> There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and federal judges have said they have provided no proof.


How is it possible to be so stupid? Somehow you manage.

Five blue states that unilaterally change their election law threaten other states by creating an uneven playing field that is unconstitutional.

I can guarantee you that no judges have ruled on this issue raised by Texas at this point.
All the cheating and partisan lower court judges in the world have nothing to say about this issue.


----------



## Skylar

Claudette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???
Click to expand...


The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Claudette said:


> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.



Well, the nice thing about this suit is that the USSC doesn't have to spend the lengthy amount of time that would be necessary to look into claims of fraud.  All they have to look at is the clear record of the actions that were taken, and whether or not they violate the Constitution.


----------



## westwall

Care4all said:


> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.







The COTUS disagrees with you.  I thought you believed in the law?

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

Remember that?

It applies to you clowns too, cupcake.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
Click to expand...


That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling. 

Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.

And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.



> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.



Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Claudette

Skylar said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.
Click to expand...


Texas found them easily enough. Guess the State was covering their ass. What say you??


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.
Click to expand...

You are very, very stupid but you will come to see there is nothing you can do to stop this matter,
It's something only the SC can rule on. One state is suing five other states over matters of
Constitutional law ........electors clause and
Equal protection clause too. Two clear violations of national election law.

I love watching worms like you squirm around. Keep it up.


----------



## Claudette

Cecilie1200 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the nice thing about this suit is that the USSC doesn't have to spend the lengthy amount of time that would be necessary to look into claims of fraud.  All they have to look at is the clear record of the actions that were taken, and whether or not they violate the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Which they did. Wonder what their findings will be??


----------



## Skylar

Claudette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas found them easily enough. Guess the State was covering their ass. What say you??
Click to expand...


Texas doesn't adjudicate the State laws of other states.

So no, Texas didn't 'find them'.


----------



## Skylar

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are very, very stupid but you will come to see there is nothing you can do to stop this matter,
> It's something only the SC can rule on. One state is suing five other states over matters of
> Constitutional law (electors clause).
> 
> I love watching worms like you squirm around. Keep it up.
Click to expand...


No, it isn't. The Supreme Court can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.


----------



## Superbadbrutha




----------



## Claudette

Skylar said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas found them easily enough. Guess the State was covering their ass. What say you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas doesn't adjudicate the State laws of other states.
> 
> So no, Texas didn't 'find them'.
Click to expand...


Of course Texas found them. That's why they are suing. Jeeze your one thick headed lefty loon.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> No, it isn't. The Supreme can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.


Right  .... the Supreme Court will just ignore this all like it never happened.

A you stay a real fucking dim bulb to the end. I love it.


----------



## Claudette

Skylar said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are very, very stupid but you will come to see there is nothing you can do to stop this matter,
> It's something only the SC can rule on. One state is suing five other states over matters of
> Constitutional law (electors clause).
> 
> I love watching worms like you squirm around. Keep it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. The Supreme Court can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.
Click to expand...


You can always hope but I doubt the SC will overlook unconstitutional behavior during an election.


----------



## Skylar

Claudette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas found them easily enough. Guess the State was covering their ass. What say you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas doesn't adjudicate the State laws of other states.
> 
> So no, Texas didn't 'find them'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Texas found them. That's why they are suing. Jeeze your one thick headed lefty loon.
Click to expand...


And Texas lacks standing and jurisdiction. Their legal assessment of OTHER state rulings is legally meaningless. As they have no authority over any election laws but their own.

The issues have been with parties that have standing, and courts that have jurisdiction. No violations were ever found.


----------



## Claudette

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. The Supreme can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.
> 
> 
> 
> Right  .... the Supreme Court will just ignore this all like it never happened.
Click to expand...


Jesus he's thick. LOL


----------



## Skylar

Claudette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are very, very stupid but you will come to see there is nothing you can do to stop this matter,
> It's something only the SC can rule on. One state is suing five other states over matters of
> Constitutional law (electors clause).
> 
> I love watching worms like you squirm around. Keep it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. The Supreme Court can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can always hope but I doubt the SC will overlook unconstitutional behavior during an election.
Click to expand...


What unconstitutional behavior?


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.


----------



## Skylar

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. The Supreme can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.
> 
> 
> 
> Right  .... the Supreme Court will just ignore this all like it never happened.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court denies certiorari to almost all cases it is asked to review. 

Which given the absurdity of the suit, is the most likely outcome for Texas' suit as well.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas found them easily enough. Guess the State was covering their ass. What say you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas doesn't adjudicate the State laws of other states.
> 
> So no, Texas didn't 'find them'.
Click to expand...


Texas has standing as the US constitution requires the State legislatures to handle the selection process for electors, executives and judges in some States decided to do things on their own.


----------



## Claudette

Skylar said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are very, very stupid but you will come to see there is nothing you can do to stop this matter,
> It's something only the SC can rule on. One state is suing five other states over matters of
> Constitutional law (electors clause).
> 
> I love watching worms like you squirm around. Keep it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. The Supreme Court can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can always hope but I doubt the SC will overlook unconstitutional behavior during an election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What unconstitutional behavior?
Click to expand...


Holy shit. Find the thread and read it. Its lists every one of them. Good God.


----------



## Cecilie1200

airplanemechanic said:


> GREAT!!
> 
> Now the SCOTUS has to take this up.



Well, no, they don't HAVE to, technically speaking.  But it definitely ratchets up the pressure on them to address this issue.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are very, very stupid but you will come to see there is nothing you can do to stop this matter,
> It's something only the SC can rule on. One state is suing five other states over matters of
> Constitutional law (electors clause).
> 
> I love watching worms like you squirm around. Keep it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. The Supreme Court can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.
Click to expand...


That doesn't mean Texas lacks standing.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
Click to expand...


If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.

The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.

Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Christ_on_a_croissant said:


> If you bootlickers really think that the SCOTUS is going to overrule state law to turn over the election process to the state legislatures, you’re out of your fucking minds





Here's your lesson on the US Constitution:


Not only has it been decided in the US Supreme Court that only the state legislature, and not any court, may alter or set the dates, but* this played an important role in the 2000 Gore v Bush case.



“U.S. Supreme Court

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)

McPherson v. Blacker
Agued Oct. 11, 1892* *Decided Oct. 17, 1892



“The validity of a state law* providing for the appointment of electors of President and Vice President having been drawn in question before the highest tribunal of a state as repugnant to the laws and Constitution of the United States, and that court having decided in favor of its validity, this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment under Rev.Stat. § 709. Under the second clause of *Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.*



Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.”







*McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)*





 supreme.justia.com





The Supreme Court should require that no ballots received beyond the 5 o’clock deadline of election day be counted.


----------



## Billiejeens

Who was it that kept saying 
Equal protection clause 
See-  Bush v Gore 

Oh yeah 
That was me.


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and federal judges have said they have provided no proof.
Click to expand...


Except that, if you check Texas's suit, they're not talking about fraud at all.  They're suing on the basis of actions taken by courts and elected officials which are easily proven.

The US Supreme Court IS a court which can rule on issues of the US Consitution being violated.  In fact, they are THE court to rule on that.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are very, very stupid but you will come to see there is nothing you can do to stop this matter,
> It's something only the SC can rule on. One state is suing five other states over matters of
> Constitutional law (electors clause).
> 
> I love watching worms like you squirm around. Keep it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. The Supreme Court can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean Texas lacks standing.
Click to expand...


Of course it lacks standing. The only parties with standing in such a suit....would be the State legislatures themselves. If say, the State legislature of Pennsylvania were to file suit, then standing wouldn't be a problem.

But *Texas*, on behalf of the people of Texas, about elections in Georgia?

Nope. Its just more theater for dipshits.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
Click to expand...


Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions. 

Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?

All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.


----------



## BlindBoo

Harrisburg, PA – Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with voter-friendly election reforms.

The law creates a new option to vote by mail up to 50 days before an election and be placed on a list to permanently receive a ballot application by mail. It also provides more time to register to vote and authorizes a $90 million bond to help counties fund the purchase of new voting systems with a paper trail that strengthens the security of our elections.

“This bill makes voting more convenient and more secure for millions of Pennsylvanians and continues my commitment to modernizing our elections,” said Governor Wolf. “This is the biggest change to our elections in generations and will strengthen our democracy by removing barriers to the voting booth and encouraging more people to vote. I applaud all of the legislators and stakeholders for their work with my administration and their spirit of compromise.”









						Governor Wolf Signs Election Reform Bill Including New Mail-in Voting
					

Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with...




					www.governor.pa.gov


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> The Supreme Court denies certiorari to almost all cases it is asked to review.
> 
> Which given the absurdity of the suit, is the most likely outcome for Texas' suit as well.


It's only "absurd" to desperate liars hanging on by fingernails.

This is one state suing four others over a matter of basic constitutional law.

It has Supreme Court written all over it. This is about one state disenfranchising citizens of all other
states. Not a chance they will ignore this vastly important issue.


----------



## Skylar

Cecilie1200 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and federal judges have said they have provided no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that, if you check Texas's suit, they're not talking about fraud at all.  They're suing on the basis of actions taken by courts and elected officials which are easily proven.
> 
> The US Supreme Court IS a court which can rule on issues of the US Consitution being violated.  In fact, they are THE court to rule on that.
Click to expand...


Actually, they are. Its the 3rd point of their brief.

"The appearance of voting irregularities in the Defendant States that would be consistent with the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot-integrity protections in those States’ election laws"


----------



## Skylar

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court denies certiorari to almost all cases it is asked to review.
> 
> Which given the absurdity of the suit, is the most likely outcome for Texas' suit as well.
> 
> 
> 
> It's only "absurd" to desperate liars hanging on by fingernails.
Click to expand...


Or....anyone with an even casual understanding of how the law works.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> Of course it lacks standing. The only parties with standing in such a suit....would be the State legislatures themselves. If say, the State legislature of Pennsylvania were to file suit, then standing wouldn't be a problem.
> 
> But *Texas*, on behalf of the people of Texas, about elections in Georgia?
> 
> Nope. Its just more theater for dipshits.


Stupid. And it misses the point. But keep going. You can get stupider still.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
Click to expand...


Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.

Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.

This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.


----------



## Skylar

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it lacks standing. The only parties with standing in such a suit....would be the State legislatures themselves. If say, the State legislature of Pennsylvania were to file suit, then standing wouldn't be a problem.
> 
> But *Texas*, on behalf of the people of Texas, about elections in Georgia?
> 
> Nope. Its just more theater for dipshits.
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid. And it misses the point. But keep going. You can get stupider still.
Click to expand...


Or.....you just have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
Click to expand...


No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> Or....anyone with an even casual understanding of how the law works.


You bluff so well.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> Or.....you just have no idea what you're talking about.


Wow. Very ironic, indeed.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
Click to expand...


There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.

Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws. And lack standing in any dispute of how those laws are applied.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
Click to expand...


Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.

Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER


----------



## iceberg

progressive hunter said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would do better if you read it first,,
Click to expand...

no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.

just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
Click to expand...


The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.

I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.


----------



## Skylar

iceberg said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would do better if you read it first,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.
> 
> just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
Click to expand...


Can't do what? 

The Supreme Court hasn't granted a writ. We're explaining why.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
Click to expand...


it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's. 

The US Constitution dictates how States appoint EV's, and Texas is saying those States didn't follow those rules.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
Click to expand...


What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?

Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.


And you can state this without any fear of contradiction? You might as well shoot for the moon when
you lie.



> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.


That's the issue, isn't it. If Michigan, Pennsylvania etc. illegally change their election laws
and it adversely effects other states and perverts the outcome of a presidential election then Texas, as well as all other states have been deprived of equal protection under the law. 

The Phillies don't get to give themselves an extra strike when playing the Astros. 

Why not think about that for awhile until the realization of your pathetic ignorance sinks in.


----------



## iceberg

Skylar said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and federal judges have said they have provided no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems Texas has plenty of proof. Lets see what the Texas Supreme Court does. I'd say the SC will be getting the case, how bout you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Texas Supreme Court? What relevance would the Texas Supreme Court have for votes in another State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are the ones issuing the charges which they have the right to do. From what I've read those states didn't follow the Constitution in relation to ballots and mail in ballots. Its in another thread. Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Texas Supreme Court has no right to issue 'charges'. They are an appeals court.
> 
> And the Texas Supreme Court has no right to issue 'charges' on other States. They are an appeals court exclusive to the State of Texas.
Click to expand...

then take it up with texas and stop whining in here.


----------



## Skylar

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> 
> 
> And you can state this without any fear of contradiction? You might as well shoot for the moon when
> you lie.
Click to expand...


Or....I've been following the cases.



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the issue, isn't it. If Michigan, Pennsylvania etc. illegally change their election laws
> and it adversely effects other states and perverts the outcome of a presidential election then Texas, as well as all other states have been deprived of equal protection under the law.
> 
> The Phillies don't get to give themselves an extra strike when playing the Astros.
> 
> Why not think about that for awhile until the realization of your pathetic ignorance sinks in.
Click to expand...


Given that the Supreme Court hasn't issued a writ, yeah...it is true.


----------



## Skylar

iceberg said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and federal judges have said they have provided no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems Texas has plenty of proof. Lets see what the Texas Supreme Court does. I'd say the SC will be getting the case, how bout you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Texas Supreme Court? What relevance would the Texas Supreme Court have for votes in another State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are the ones issuing the charges which they have the right to do. From what I've read those states didn't follow the Constitution in relation to ballots and mail in ballots. Its in another thread. Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Texas Supreme Court has no right to issue 'charges'. They are an appeals court.
> 
> And the Texas Supreme Court has no right to issue 'charges' on other States. They are an appeals court exclusive to the State of Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then take it up with texas and stop whining in here.
Click to expand...


The Texas Supreme Court isn't issuing any 'charges'. So what is there to take up with Texas?


----------



## progressive hunter

Skylar said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would do better if you read it first,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.
> 
> just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't do what?
> 
> The Supreme Court hasn't granted a writ. We're explaining why.
Click to expand...

and what are the credentials of "we" that we should consider their opinion???


----------



## Skylar

progressive hunter said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would do better if you read it first,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.
> 
> just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't do what?
> 
> The Supreme Court hasn't granted a writ. We're explaining why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and what are the credentials of "we" that we should consider their opinion???
Click to expand...


We would be anyone in this thread who is explaining why this suit lacks standing or is otherwise legally deficient.


----------



## iceberg

Skylar said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and federal judges have said they have provided no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems Texas has plenty of proof. Lets see what the Texas Supreme Court does. I'd say the SC will be getting the case, how bout you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Texas Supreme Court? What relevance would the Texas Supreme Court have for votes in another State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are the ones issuing the charges which they have the right to do. From what I've read those states didn't follow the Constitution in relation to ballots and mail in ballots. Its in another thread. Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Texas Supreme Court has no right to issue 'charges'. They are an appeals court.
> 
> And the Texas Supreme Court has no right to issue 'charges' on other States. They are an appeals court exclusive to the State of Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then take it up with texas and stop whining in here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Texas Supreme Court isn't issuing any 'charges'. So what is there to take up with Texas?
Click to expand...

don't care. just the endless whining anytime someone opposes something you and the left wants makes me feel like we're stuck in a terminal ground hogs day of romper room.


----------



## BlindBoo

Texas maybe should get sued in the SC because some other state thinks that the voter suppression tactics the Abbott Regine took deprived voters of the rights thus skewing the EC vote.









						U.S. Supreme Court declines to change Wisconsin's voting rules, keeps Election Day deadline for mailed ballots
					

The U.S. Supreme Court upholds Wisconsin's voting laws, rejecting an effort to require the counting of absentee ballots arriving after Election Day.



					www.jsonline.com


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
Click to expand...


The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules. 

The SC has final say in this, as per the US Constitution, which says the State legislatures set voting regulations, not the Executive, not the State courts.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> Or....I've been following the cases.


ALL the cases? EVER? And you have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything?
Like I said, if you are going to lie you might as well lie as bigly as you can.


Skylar said:


> Given that the Supreme Court hasn't issued a writ, yeah...it is true.


First day this is in the news.


----------



## progressive hunter

Skylar said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would do better if you read it first,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.
> 
> just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't do what?
> 
> The Supreme Court hasn't granted a writ. We're explaining why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and what are the credentials of "we" that we should consider their opinion???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We would be anyone in this thread who is explaining why this suit lacks standing or is otherwise legally deficient.
Click to expand...

so youre just another faceless voice on the interrnet,,, got it,,


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
Click to expand...


The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.

Yes, they have.

So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?


----------



## progressive hunter

BlindBoo said:


> Texas maybe should get sued in the SC because some other state thinks that the voter suppression tactics the Abbott Regine took deprived voters of the rights thus skewing the EC vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Supreme Court declines to change Wisconsin's voting rules, keeps Election Day deadline for mailed ballots
> 
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court upholds Wisconsin's voting laws, rejecting an effort to require the counting of absentee ballots arriving after Election Day.
> 
> 
> 
> www.jsonline.com


when that happens you let us know,, until then lets stick with current issues,,


----------



## Billiejeens

Dogbiscuit said:


> Christ_on_a_croissant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ_on_a_croissant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you bootlickers really think that the SCOTUS is going to overrule state law to turn over the election process to the state legislatures, you’re out of your fucking minds
> 
> 
> 
> great.
> 
> if you boot lickers think we're going to sit back and watch you cheat your asses off, you're out of your fucking minds.
> 
> wheee. we can do this all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no widespread fraud, you fucking simpleton. No judge has seen credible evidence. No state attorney general that Trump lost has agreed.
> 
> You’re all a bunch of sore losers who, like children, think that if you whine enough, you’ll get your way.
> 
> It’s over. Trump, and people like you, are causing serious damage to the
> integrity of our elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Donald J Trump has taken the Constitution of the United States, dampened it ever so slightly so that its still pliable, grabbed it tightly with both hands and continues to slowly tighten it around the proverbial neck of the Democratic party.
> Texas is just helping out a bit, hope you dont mind if we take our country back.
Click to expand...


And choke the Democrat party to death in the process


----------



## Skylar

progressive hunter said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would do better if you read it first,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.
> 
> just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't do what?
> 
> The Supreme Court hasn't granted a writ. We're explaining why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and what are the credentials of "we" that we should consider their opinion???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We would be anyone in this thread who is explaining why this suit lacks standing or is otherwise legally deficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so youre just another faceless voice on the interrnet,,, got it,,
Click to expand...


Oh, I'm just explaining WHY there is no writ granted. 

The fact is, there's no writ granted.


----------



## progressive hunter

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
Click to expand...

wrong again,,,


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

BlindBoo said:


> Texas maybe should get sued in the SC because some other state thinks that the voter suppression tactics the Abbott Regine took deprived voters of the rights thus skewing the EC vote.


Running out of bullshit? It shows.


----------



## progressive hunter

Skylar said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would do better if you read it first,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.
> 
> just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't do what?
> 
> The Supreme Court hasn't granted a writ. We're explaining why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and what are the credentials of "we" that we should consider their opinion???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We would be anyone in this thread who is explaining why this suit lacks standing or is otherwise legally deficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so youre just another faceless voice on the interrnet,,, got it,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm just explaining WHY there is no writ granted.
> 
> The fact is, there's no writ granted.
Click to expand...

then why are you so scared???


----------



## Skylar

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or....I've been following the cases.
> 
> 
> 
> ALL the cases? EVER? And you have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything?
> Like I said, if you are going to lie you might as well lie as bigly as you can.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that the Supreme Court hasn't issued a writ, yeah...it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First day this is in the news.
Click to expand...


Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.


----------



## Turtlesoup

busybee01 said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull shit----------the dems making up thousands of fraudulent votes to steal election certainly harms everyone else in other states as it is used to steal elections and in this case puts a communist sell out Joe biden in to sell us all down the river not to mention allows him and his family to continue to rape little girls.   It harms texas....and florida.....and alaska and everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts have found nothing to substantiate any claim Trump ia making.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I have--------------------so I really don't care what any court says.  THE evidence is there.


----------



## Skylar

progressive hunter said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would do better if you read it first,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.
> 
> just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't do what?
> 
> The Supreme Court hasn't granted a writ. We're explaining why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and what are the credentials of "we" that we should consider their opinion???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We would be anyone in this thread who is explaining why this suit lacks standing or is otherwise legally deficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so youre just another faceless voice on the interrnet,,, got it,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm just explaining WHY there is no writ granted.
> 
> The fact is, there's no writ granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then why are you so scared???
Click to expand...

What part of 'Theater for Dipshits' makes you think I'm scared?

I'm laughing at you poor, unfortunate souls.


----------



## progressive hunter

Skylar said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or....I've been following the cases.
> 
> 
> 
> ALL the cases? EVER? And you have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything?
> Like I said, if you are going to lie you might as well lie as bigly as you can.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that the Supreme Court hasn't issued a writ, yeah...it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First day this is in the news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
Click to expand...

patience my retarded friend patience,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Skylar said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would do better if you read it first,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.
> 
> just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't do what?
> 
> The Supreme Court hasn't granted a writ. We're explaining why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and what are the credentials of "we" that we should consider their opinion???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We would be anyone in this thread who is explaining why this suit lacks standing or is otherwise legally deficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so youre just another faceless voice on the interrnet,,, got it,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm just explaining WHY there is no writ granted.
> 
> The fact is, there's no writ granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then why are you so scared???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of 'Theater for Dipshits' makes you think I'm scared?
> 
> I'm laughing at you poor, unfortunate souls.
Click to expand...

we can start with your never ended rants,,,


----------



## iceberg

Skylar said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would do better if you read it first,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.
> 
> just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't do what?
> 
> The Supreme Court hasn't granted a writ. We're explaining why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and what are the credentials of "we" that we should consider their opinion???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We would be anyone in this thread who is explaining why this suit lacks standing or is otherwise legally deficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so youre just another faceless voice on the interrnet,,, got it,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm just explaining WHY there is no writ granted.
> 
> The fact is, there's no writ granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then why are you so scared???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of 'Theater for Dipshits' makes you think I'm scared?
> 
> I'm laughing at you poor, unfortunate souls.
Click to expand...

yet what you say can't be done, is being done.

maybe...just maybe...

you are wrong.

THE HORROR.


----------



## iceberg

progressive hunter said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would do better if you read it first,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.
> 
> just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't do what?
> 
> The Supreme Court hasn't granted a writ. We're explaining why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and what are the credentials of "we" that we should consider their opinion???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We would be anyone in this thread who is explaining why this suit lacks standing or is otherwise legally deficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so youre just another faceless voice on the interrnet,,, got it,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm just explaining WHY there is no writ granted.
> 
> The fact is, there's no writ granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then why are you so scared???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of 'Theater for Dipshits' makes you think I'm scared?
> 
> I'm laughing at you poor, unfortunate souls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we can start with your never ended rants,,,
Click to expand...

oh we can end with them too if we only could...


----------



## Skylar

iceberg said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would do better if you read it first,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.
> 
> just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't do what?
> 
> The Supreme Court hasn't granted a writ. We're explaining why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and what are the credentials of "we" that we should consider their opinion???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We would be anyone in this thread who is explaining why this suit lacks standing or is otherwise legally deficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so youre just another faceless voice on the interrnet,,, got it,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm just explaining WHY there is no writ granted.
> 
> The fact is, there's no writ granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then why are you so scared???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of 'Theater for Dipshits' makes you think I'm scared?
> 
> I'm laughing at you poor, unfortunate souls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet what you say can't be done, is being done.
> 
> maybe...just maybe...
> 
> you are wrong.
> 
> THE HORROR.
Click to expand...


No, it hasn't. The writ hasn't been issued.  Do you know how requests for writs of certiorari actually work?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.


Five states unilaterally changed their election law, to their benefit (to Biden's benefit, that is) without benefit of their legislators. 

*That's not  legal. *

You don't get to decide in the third inning that the home team doesn't need to bother
touching third base anymore.

It cheats the other team. It skews the outcome of games and effects all the other teams in the league.

Can I simplify this any more? I doubt it.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
Click to expand...


The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States. 

The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this. 

The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.


----------



## Skylar

progressive hunter said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or....I've been following the cases.
> 
> 
> 
> ALL the cases? EVER? And you have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything?
> Like I said, if you are going to lie you might as well lie as bigly as you can.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that the Supreme Court hasn't issued a writ, yeah...it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First day this is in the news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> patience my retarded friend patience,,
Click to expand...


Uh-huh. You've said that before every failed Trump suit too.

How'd that work out again?


----------



## Astrostar

Claudette said:


> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.


"Evidence" you say.  Do you have a law degree and years of legal experience in the American court system?  If so, explain to us why American courts and American judges are pitching Trump's suits and claims of fraud into the dumper.  Bigly!!!


----------



## progressive hunter

Skylar said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or....I've been following the cases.
> 
> 
> 
> ALL the cases? EVER? And you have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything?
> Like I said, if you are going to lie you might as well lie as bigly as you can.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that the Supreme Court hasn't issued a writ, yeah...it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First day this is in the news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> patience my retarded friend patience,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-huh. You've said that before every failed Trump suit too.
> 
> How'd that work out again?
Click to expand...

patience my retarded friend patience,,,


----------



## BlindBoo

progressive hunter said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas maybe should get sued in the SC because some other state thinks that the voter suppression tactics the Abbott Regine took deprived voters of the rights thus skewing the EC vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Supreme Court declines to change Wisconsin's voting rules, keeps Election Day deadline for mailed ballots
> 
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court upholds Wisconsin's voting laws, rejecting an effort to require the counting of absentee ballots arriving after Election Day.
> 
> 
> 
> www.jsonline.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when that happens you let us know,, until then lets stick with current issues,,
Click to expand...


Like Texas, the matter in WI has already made it to the SC.  Guess what your side won and still lost the election.

The laws in all of the state were followed.  It's a "Hail Mary" in hopes that the SC has been compromised by Trumpybear loyalist.  I think the best they can do is 3-6.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
Click to expand...


Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.

You're still stuck at square one.


----------



## iceberg

Skylar said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would do better if you read it first,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.
> 
> just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't do what?
> 
> The Supreme Court hasn't granted a writ. We're explaining why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and what are the credentials of "we" that we should consider their opinion???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We would be anyone in this thread who is explaining why this suit lacks standing or is otherwise legally deficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so youre just another faceless voice on the interrnet,,, got it,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm just explaining WHY there is no writ granted.
> 
> The fact is, there's no writ granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then why are you so scared???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of 'Theater for Dipshits' makes you think I'm scared?
> 
> I'm laughing at you poor, unfortunate souls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet what you say can't be done, is being done.
> 
> maybe...just maybe...
> 
> you are wrong.
> 
> THE HORROR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it hasn't. The writ hasn't been issued.  Do you know how requests for writs of certiorari actually work?
Click to expand...

it is happening. you and your WAH WRIT WAH HEAR ME I KNOWZ STUFZ isn't stopping it from happening.

go be 12 elsewhere.


----------



## progressive hunter

BlindBoo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas maybe should get sued in the SC because some other state thinks that the voter suppression tactics the Abbott Regine took deprived voters of the rights thus skewing the EC vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Supreme Court declines to change Wisconsin's voting rules, keeps Election Day deadline for mailed ballots
> 
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court upholds Wisconsin's voting laws, rejecting an effort to require the counting of absentee ballots arriving after Election Day.
> 
> 
> 
> www.jsonline.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when that happens you let us know,, until then lets stick with current issues,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like Texas, the matter in WI has already made it to the SC.  Guess what your side won and still lost the election.
> 
> The laws in all of the state were followed.  It's a "Hail Mary" in hopes that the SC has been compromised by Trumpybear loyalist.  I think the best they can do is 3-6.
Click to expand...

how can that be when its far from over???


----------



## Billiejeens

Care4all said:


> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.



The will of the people is exactly what the lawsuit is looking to ensure.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
Click to expand...


It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures. 

You are just flailing now.


----------



## Claudette

candycorn said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In new lawsuit, Texas contests election results in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania
> 
> 
> Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" in the Electoral College. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, experts say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" in the Electoral College. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud --  In the suit, he claims that pandemic-era changes to election procedures in those states violated federal law, and asks the U.S. Supreme Court to block the states from voting in the Electoral College."*
> 
> In a brilliant move, Paxton does the same thing Democrats did back when they were filing lawsuits all over the place to stop Trump from being inaugurated....so what's fair is fair right??
> 
> Nevermind the fact that the election laws in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan were passed by their own state legislatures, but Texas knows better...even tho when they tried to challenge their own state's election laws, they were laughed out of court...but anything for the God-King Trump...
> 
> We will all pretend this never happened later anyways, so why not....
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid is as Texas does.
Click to expand...


Not so stupid. Everyone of those states changed election laws in violation of the Constitution. Its on another thread on this board. Texas has a very good case. 

Alito is already looking at PA.


----------



## iceberg

martybegan said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.
> 
> You are just flailing now.
Click to expand...

now?

name a time she wasn't.


----------



## Billiejeens

Rogue AI said:


> Christ_on_a_croissant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ_on_a_croissant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you bootlickers really think that the SCOTUS is going to overrule state law to turn over the election process to the state legislatures, you’re out of your fucking minds
> 
> 
> 
> great.
> 
> if you boot lickers think we're going to sit back and watch you cheat your asses off, you're out of your fucking minds.
> 
> wheee. we can do this all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no widespread fraud, you fucking simpleton. No judge has seen credible evidence. No state attorney general that Trump lost has agreed.
> 
> You’re all a bunch of sore losers who, like children, think that if you whine enough, you’ll get your way.
> 
> It’s over. Trump, and people like you, are causing serious damage to the
> integrity of our elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no integrity in an election in which votes are not held to the same standard for all voters in the states in question.
Click to expand...


They want the same standard - they want all votes for Biden to have the same weight whether they were legally cast or not.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.


Bush v Gore was the last case I can remember in which basic matters of election fraud and denied equal protection was addressed by the court. 

Remember?


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.
> 
> You are just flailing now.
Click to expand...


Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.


----------



## BlindBoo

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas maybe should get sued in the SC because some other state thinks that the voter suppression tactics the Abbott Regine took deprived voters of the rights thus skewing the EC vote.
> 
> 
> 
> Running out of bullshit? It shows.
Click to expand...


It would be just as valid as the Texas "Hail Mary".


----------



## Skylar

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
> 
> 
> 
> Bush v Gore was the last case I can remember in which basic matters of election fraud and denied equal protection was addressed by the court.
> 
> Remember?
Click to expand...


Bush V. Gore wasn't adjudicated by a State court.

Try again.

Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.


----------



## iceberg

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.
> 
> You are just flailing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.
Click to expand...

yet the arguments are being heard.

WAH.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

busybee01 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
Click to expand...


No, you're wrong again. Illinois gets that honor. I don't think you've ever been right.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Lysistrata said:


> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.


/———/ Of course they have standing if the other state violates the constitution.
Article III of the Constitution has a small number of categories of cases where the Supreme Court has what’s called “Original Jurisdiction.”  One of the categories involved “Controversies between two or more states,” and the suit Texas has filed is precisely that.
Read it here: Texas 2020 Election Lawsuit Against Four States Goes Directly To US Supreme Court


----------



## Claudette

Astrostar said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> "Evidence" you say.  Do you have a law degree and years of legal experience in the American court system?  If so, explain to us why American courts and American judges are pitching Trump's suits and claims of fraud into the dumper.  Bigly!!!
Click to expand...


LMAO What those states did is on another thread on this board. Look it up. What they did was totally unconstitutional. Alito is already looking at PA.


----------



## Billiejeens

busybee01 said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can also talk about the corruption of the Post Office. Trump deliberately tried to slow down the mail so a few days extension was more than justified.
Click to expand...


There is simply absolutely no evidence for that,


----------



## Billiejeens

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moron with an Augusto Pinochet avatar is advocating a coup d’etat. Will wonders never cease?
> 
> 
> 
> "Coup d'etat" in crook speak means stopping the theft of the presidential election through the Supreme Court.
> Go change your diapers, little baby. Crying will do you no good.
Click to expand...


That doesn't ever stop him.


----------



## Skylar

iceberg said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.
> 
> You are just flailing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet the arguments are being heard.
> 
> WAH.
Click to expand...


No, they aren't. No writ has been issued.


----------



## WelfareQueen

Care4all said:


> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.




Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.   

This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  This should not be about team politics.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> Bush V. Gore wasn't adjudicated by a State court.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.


Oh... a state court. I can't think of one.  Of course there could be some case in RI or New Mexico
I'm not aware of. It's not pertinent, however in this context. So you really have no point at all, in reality.


----------



## Billiejeens

Skylar said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.
Click to expand...


Factually false


----------



## Claudette

WelfareQueen said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  This should not be about team politics.
Click to expand...


Yup those States, by doing what they did, disenfranchised the entire election.


----------



## Billiejeens

Claudette said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. The Supreme can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.
> 
> 
> 
> Right  .... the Supreme Court will just ignore this all like it never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus he's thick. LOL
Click to expand...


It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.


----------



## Billiejeens

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
Click to expand...


Factually false


----------



## Billiejeens

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or....anyone with an even casual understanding of how the law works.
> 
> 
> 
> You bluff so well.
Click to expand...


Factually False


----------



## iceberg

Skylar said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
> 
> 
> 
> Bush v Gore was the last case I can remember in which basic matters of election fraud and denied equal protection was addressed by the court.
> 
> Remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush V. Gore wasn't adjudicated by a State court.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
Click to expand...




			https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-supreme-court-rules-florida-top-court-violated-constitution-1.252175
		


wonder if they had a "writ".


----------



## Claudette

Billiejeens said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. The Supreme can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.
> 
> 
> 
> Right  .... the Supreme Court will just ignore this all like it never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus he's thick. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
Click to expand...


Alito is already looking at PA and because its a direct violation of the Constitution you can bet the SC will look at every State Texas named. What those States did disenfranchised the entire election.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Billiejeens said:


> It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.


Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
way to victory.  The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.

And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
slitting their own wrists.


----------



## Thunk

Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules

Texas Case Challenges Election Directly at Supreme Court

"Texas brought a suit against four states that did something they cannot do: they violated the U.S. Constitution in their conduct of the presidential election. And this violation occurred regardless of the amount of election fraud that may have resulted. The four defendant states are Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Texas filed the suit directly in the Supreme Court. Article III of the Constitution lists a small number of categories of cases in which the Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction.”

The Texas suit is clear, and it presents a compelling case. The four offending states each violated the U.S. Constitution in two ways.

First, they violated the Electors Clause of Article II of the Constitution when executive or judicial officials in the states changed the rules of the election without going through the state legislatures. The Electors Clause requires that each State “shall appoint” its presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

Thus, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended by three days the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots, contrary to the law passed by the state legislature, the state court changed the rules in violation of the Electors Clause. Similarly, when Georgia’s Secretary of State responded to a lawsuit by entering into a Compromise Settlement Agreement and Release (i.e. a consent decree) with the Democratic Party of Georgia, and modified the signature verification requirements spelled out by Georgia law, that changing of the rules violated the Electors Clause."


*Importantly, the Texas lawsuit presents a pure question of law.  It is not dependent upon disputed facts.  Although these unconstitutional changes to the election rules could have facilitated voter fraud, the State of Texas doesn’t need to prove a single case of fraud to win. It is enough that the four states violated the Constitution.*









						Kobach: Texas Case Challenges Election Directly at Supreme Court
					

On Monday, just before midnight, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit at the Supreme Court that is the most important election challenge yet.




					www.breitbart.com


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.
> 
> You are just flailing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.
Click to expand...


The case is being made, asking for a writ at this point is just trying to ignore the merits.


----------



## Billiejeens

Skylar said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
> 
> 
> 
> Bush v Gore was the last case I can remember in which basic matters of election fraud and denied equal protection was addressed by the court.
> 
> Remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush V. Gore wasn't adjudicated by a State court.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
Click to expand...


Damn you're dumb


----------



## BlindBoo

Officials in Georgia — where Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger recertified the state's election results again Monday after a recount — were quick to dismiss Paxton's allegations, as were leaders in the other three states named in the lawsuit.

"The allegations in the lawsuit are false and irresponsible," Georgia's deputy secretary of state, Jordan Fuchs, said in a statement Tuesday. "Texas alleges that there are 80,000 forged signatures on absentee ballots in Georgia, but they don’t bring forward a single person who this happened to. That’s because it didn’t happen."

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel dismissed Paxton's suit as "a publicity stunt, not a serious legal pleading."

"Mr. Paxton’s actions are beneath the dignity of the office of Attorney General and the people of the great state of Texas," she said









						In new lawsuit, Texas contests election results in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania
					

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" in the Electoral College. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, experts say.




					www.texastribune.org


----------



## bendog

Lysistrata said:


> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.


Maybe Tex asked for a jury trial too.  LOL


----------



## Coyote

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
Click to expand...


Just one more example of traitorous Republicans trying to overturn an election and install their candidate.


----------



## Billiejeens

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
> way to victory.  The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.
> 
> And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws.
Click to expand...


I agree with all of that.
I'm not sure what remedy will solve the issue though

Most likely it will be some version of yes the Democrats  committed massive fraud, but we see no political  remedy to repair that.
the court will find that Biden is illegitimate - but he will still be seated.
Some people will be found guilty of criminal charges - some of civil charges.

Mostly low level players.


----------



## Claudette

Coyote said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one more example of traitorous Republicans trying to overturn an election and install their candidate.
Click to expand...


Nope. Texas has a good case. Its on another thread on this board.


----------



## Mac-7

Mac1958 said:


> Gotta keep the base happy


Yes, this is about trump voters 

Something libs continue to misunderstand


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one more example of traitorous Republicans trying to overturn an election and install their candidate.
Click to expand...

and the left has every plan to see biden finish his 1st term...


----------



## Coyote

CrusaderFrank said:


> We cannot not allowing cheating democrats to ignore the Constitution
> 
> Biden cannot and will not cheat his way to the Presidency



Translation: we don't like the results of the election so we'll claim fraud without evidence and if the courts won't give us our way, we'll try and get the Republican state legislatures to install our candidate.


----------



## Mac-7

martybegan said:


> Note they are not trying to prove fraud, they are trying to say the processes these States used to circumvent normal election law due to COVID made the votes insecure.


Texas is suing over equal protection 

Its a very simple constitutional question


----------



## bendog

Claudette said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one more example of traitorous Republicans trying to overturn an election and install their candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Texas has a good case. Its on another thread on this board.
Click to expand...


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.
> 
> You are just flailing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The case is being made, asking for a writ at this point is just trying to ignore the merits.
Click to expand...


The petition for the writ has been submitted. The petition for the writ has not been granted.

We're explaining to you why.


----------



## Skylar

Billiejeens said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
> 
> 
> 
> Bush v Gore was the last case I can remember in which basic matters of election fraud and denied equal protection was addressed by the court.
> 
> Remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush V. Gore wasn't adjudicated by a State court.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn you're dumb
Click to expand...


I'm rubber, you're glue, Billy.


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull shit----------the dems making up thousands of fraudulent votes to steal election certainly harms everyone else in other states as it is used to steal elections and in this case puts a communist sell out Joe biden in to sell us all down the river not to mention allows him and his family to continue to rape little girls.   It harms texas....and florida.....and alaska and everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts have found nothing to substantiate any claim Trump ia making.
Click to expand...


Then it's fortunate that Texas' lawsuit isn't about Trump or his claims.


----------



## Doc7505

*Don’t Mess with Texas! 
Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures*
*Texas goes directly to the Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to order these swing states with voting irregularities to allow their legislatures to appoint presidential electors.*​
Don't Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures | The Stream 
8 Dec 2020 ~~ By Al Perrotta
~[snip]~

Just before midnight, the State of Texas threw its massive weight into the election fraud fight. Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds their ad-hoc changes to election procedures were unconstitutional. And as a result, violated the rights of Texans and those in other states that followed the constitution. Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
What’s more, Texas isn’t fiddling around with lower courts. They marched straight to the Supreme Court. And they are requesting the Supreme Court order the offending states to allow their legislatures to appoint their presidential electors.
*Dodging State Legislatures Was Dodgy*
Breitbart was the first major outlet with the story, and breaks down the argument the Lone Star State is making.
Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.​In their lawsuit, Texas claims “certain officials in the Defendant States” presented the COVID pandemic “as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in balloting.” As streiff at RedState noted, “there’s no pandemic escape hatch in the constitution.”
~[snip]~
*Going to the Supreme Court…a Long Shot, Perhaps*
Texas approached the Supreme Court directly, Breitbart reports, “because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.”
Is the Supreme Court going to hear the case? Twitchy has collected the early reaction of legal types, and the consensus seems to be it’s a long shot the Supreme Court will hear the case, let alone rule in Texas’ favor. Several commentators note that the suit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, not the state’s solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who would be the go-to person for suits like this.


Comment:
The  Roberts court will either determine that it's none of Texas' business how other states do stuff or that the legistlatures were in session and aware of the changes and did not act, therefore they are implicitly the method determined by the legislature to be appropriate and so once again, buzz of Texas. 
This case doesn’t require evidence, it hangs upon the law being changed illegally, before the election. 
Every American voter in is being disenfranchised in this National Election by the States who were grossly negligent in their duties to conduct a free and fair election.
All States, who abided by their State Election Rules, should join with Texas and take the scoundrels to court.


----------



## iceberg

Skylar said:


> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
> 
> 
> 
> Bush v Gore was the last case I can remember in which basic matters of election fraud and denied equal protection was addressed by the court.
> 
> Remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush V. Gore wasn't adjudicated by a State court.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn you're dumb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm rubber, you're glue, Billy.
Click to expand...

oddly enough this is the most intelligent thing you've said yet.


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can also talk about the corruption of the Post Office. Trump deliberately tried to slow down the mail so a few days extension was more than justified.
Click to expand...


No, he really didn't.  I know your thought masters told you to "know" that, but that doesn't mean it isn't still bullshit.

Oh, and the law doesn't change based on "But I think it was a really, really good thing to do."


----------



## Skylar

Cecilie1200 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull shit----------the dems making up thousands of fraudulent votes to steal election certainly harms everyone else in other states as it is used to steal elections and in this case puts a communist sell out Joe biden in to sell us all down the river not to mention allows him and his family to continue to rape little girls.   It harms texas....and florida.....and alaska and everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts have found nothing to substantiate any claim Trump ia making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it's fortunate that Texas' lawsuit isn't about Trump or his claims.
Click to expand...


Its a rehash of many of the legal arguments challenging the election in the State courts.

The State court rejected the legal arguments. The issue has been adjudicated. No violations have ever been found.


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not. There have been no illegal changes.
Click to expand...


I just heard, "All the changes were legal, because I really, really like the results!"


----------



## Billiejeens

Skylar said:


> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
> 
> 
> 
> Bush v Gore was the last case I can remember in which basic matters of election fraud and denied equal protection was addressed by the court.
> 
> Remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush V. Gore wasn't adjudicated by a State court.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn you're dumb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm rubber, you're glue, Billy.
Click to expand...


Billie


----------



## Blaine Sweeter

Thunk said:


> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> Texas Case Challenges Election Directly at Supreme Court
> 
> "Texas brought a suit against four states that did something they cannot do: they violated the U.S. Constitution in their conduct of the presidential election. And this violation occurred regardless of the amount of election fraud that may have resulted. The four defendant states are Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
> 
> Texas filed the suit directly in the Supreme Court. Article III of the Constitution lists a small number of categories of cases in which the Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction.”
> 
> The Texas suit is clear, and it presents a compelling case. The four offending states each violated the U.S. Constitution in two ways.
> 
> First, they violated the Electors Clause of Article II of the Constitution when executive or judicial officials in the states changed the rules of the election without going through the state legislatures. The Electors Clause requires that each State “shall appoint” its presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”
> 
> Thus, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended by three days the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots, contrary to the law passed by the state legislature, the state court changed the rules in violation of the Electors Clause. Similarly, when Georgia’s Secretary of State responded to a lawsuit by entering into a Compromise Settlement Agreement and Release (i.e. a consent decree) with the Democratic Party of Georgia, and modified the signature verification requirements spelled out by Georgia law, that changing of the rules violated the Electors Clause."
> 
> 
> *Importantly, the Texas lawsuit presents a pure question of law.  It is not dependent upon disputed facts.  Although these unconstitutional changes to the election rules could have facilitated voter fraud, the State of Texas doesn’t need to prove a single case of fraud to win. It is enough that the four states violated the Constitution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kobach: Texas Case Challenges Election Directly at Supreme Court
> 
> 
> On Monday, just before midnight, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit at the Supreme Court that is the most important election challenge yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com



Ha!  Breitbart is so full of right-tard shit.

The Supreme Court will most likely refuse to hear the flimsy, empty case and go with what Bill Barr said, no fraud.

_"The Supreme Court is not obligated to hear the case and has said in previous decisions that its “original jurisdiction,” which allows it to directly hear litigation between states, should be invoked sparingly.

Paul Smith, a professor and election law expert at Georgetown University’s law school, said Texas did not have a legitimate basis for the suit.

“There is no possible way that the state of Texas has standing to complain about how other states counted the votes and how they are about to cast their electoral votes,” Smith said."""""_









						Texas asks U.S. Supreme Court to help Trump upend election in long-shot lawsuit
					

The state of Texas on Tuesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out the voting results in four other states in a long-shot legal gambit intended to help President Donald Trump upend his election loss to President-elect Joe Biden.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## martybegan

Cecilie1200 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not. There have been no illegal changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just heard, "All the changes were legal, because I really, really like the results!"
Click to expand...


And also "all the changes were legal because the people making the changes said they were legal"


----------



## Claudette

Coyote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot not allowing cheating democrats to ignore the Constitution
> 
> Biden cannot and will not cheat his way to the Presidency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: we don't like the results of the election so we'll claim fraud without evidence and if the courts won't give us our way, we'll try and get the Republican state legislatures to install our candidate.
Click to expand...


Oh there's evidence all right. Its on another thread on this board. Look it up. 

Texas sues PA, GA, and three others. Texas has a very good case.


----------



## Billiejeens

iceberg said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
> 
> 
> 
> Bush v Gore was the last case I can remember in which basic matters of election fraud and denied equal protection was addressed by the court.
> 
> Remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush V. Gore wasn't adjudicated by a State court.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn you're dumb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm rubber, you're glue, Billy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oddly enough this is the most intelligent thing you've said yet.
Click to expand...


Even got that wrong.


----------



## iceberg

Billiejeens said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
> 
> 
> 
> Bush v Gore was the last case I can remember in which basic matters of election fraud and denied equal protection was addressed by the court.
> 
> Remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush V. Gore wasn't adjudicated by a State court.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn you're dumb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm rubber, you're glue, Billy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oddly enough this is the most intelligent thing you've said yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even got that wrong.
Click to expand...

oh didn't say it was correct, just her most intelligent statement of the day.


----------



## edthecynic

Doc7505 said:


> *Don’t Mess with Texas!
> Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures*
> *Texas goes directly to the Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to order these swing states with voting irregularities to allow their legislatures to appoint presidential electors.*​
> Don't Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures | The Stream
> 8 Dec 2020 ~~ By Al Perrotta
> ~[snip]~
> 
> Just before midnight, the State of Texas threw its massive weight into the election fraud fight. Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds their ad-hoc changes to election procedures were unconstitutional. And as a result, violated the rights of Texans and those in other states that followed the constitution. Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
> What’s more, Texas isn’t fiddling around with lower courts. They marched straight to the Supreme Court. And they are requesting the Supreme Court order the offending states to allow their legislatures to appoint their presidential electors.
> *Dodging State Legislatures Was Dodgy*
> Breitbart was the first major outlet with the story, and breaks down the argument the Lone Star State is making.
> Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.​In their lawsuit, Texas claims “certain officials in the Defendant States” presented the COVID pandemic “as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in balloting.” As streiff at RedState noted, “there’s no pandemic escape hatch in the constitution.”
> ~[snip]~
> *Going to the Supreme Court…a Long Shot, Perhaps*
> Texas approached the Supreme Court directly, Breitbart reports, “because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.”
> Is the Supreme Court going to hear the case? Twitchy has collected the early reaction of legal types, and the consensus seems to be it’s a long shot the Supreme Court will hear the case, let alone rule in Texas’ favor. Several commentators note that the suit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, not the state’s solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who would be the go-to person for suits like this.
> 
> 
> Comment:
> The  Roberts court will either determine that it's none of Texas' business how other states do stuff or that the legistlatures were in session and aware of the changes and did not act, therefore they are implicitly the method determined by the legislature to be appropriate and so once again, buzz of Texas.
> This case doesn’t require evidence, it hangs upon the law being changed illegally, before the election.
> Every American voter in is being disenfranchised in this National Election by the States who were grossly negligent in their duties to conduct a free and fair election.
> All States, who abided by their State Election Rules, should join with Texas and take the scoundrels to court.


Texas has NO standing!!!


----------



## Skylar

Claudette said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot not allowing cheating democrats to ignore the Constitution
> 
> Biden cannot and will not cheat his way to the Presidency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: we don't like the results of the election so we'll claim fraud without evidence and if the courts won't give us our way, we'll try and get the Republican state legislatures to install our candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh there's evidence all right. Its on another thread on this board. Look it up.
> 
> Texas sues PA, GA, and three others. Texas has a very good case.
Click to expand...


Texas has a shit case that is little more than theater for dipshits.

First, Texas doesn't have standing for the election laws in other states. This alone ends any viable legal challenge. But wait, there's more!

Second, the States  in question have found no violations of their own election laws. The issues have been adjudicated. Killing the legal challenge again. But lets kick the dead horse, shall we?

Third, if this were genuinely a constitutional challenge to mail in ballots and not a political stunt, Texas would have filed suit against ALL states that used mail in ballots. Including, say, California. They didn't. They targeted only the swing States. Stripping the suit of even its internal logic.

Fourth, the Doctrine of Laches. If Texas genuinely felt that these changes would have invalidated Texas votes, they could have filed suit months and months ago. Instead, they waited to see results of the election. And only then filed suits based on those results. That's not how the law works. If the harm is in the process, you don't want to see if you like the results of the process before you sue.

Fifth, there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud that the suit's logic is predicated on.

Sixth, the remedy that Texas is seeking is extreme. Delaying the electoral vote itself? Disenfranchising tens of millions of voters? Its absolutely unprecedented. Extreme remedies require extreme evidence. _And Texas has none._

Seventh, waiting until the Safe Harbor day to file the suit demonstrates that Texas has no real interest in pursuing their suit. As they waited until the last possible moment to file, when their suit had the least possibility of being heard and the remedy offered.


----------



## Rambunctious

This will go directly to the supreme court....


----------



## Coyote

WelfareQueen said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
Click to expand...


No it should not.

And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.

When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...

*make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.

That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.


----------



## White 6

Doc7505 said:


> *Don’t Mess with Texas!
> Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures*
> *Texas goes directly to the Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to order these swing states with voting irregularities to allow their legislatures to appoint presidential electors.*​
> Don't Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures | The Stream
> 8 Dec 2020 ~~ By Al Perrotta
> ~[snip]~
> 
> Just before midnight, the State of Texas threw its massive weight into the election fraud fight. Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds their ad-hoc changes to election procedures were unconstitutional. And as a result, violated the rights of Texans and those in other states that followed the constitution. Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
> What’s more, Texas isn’t fiddling around with lower courts. They marched straight to the Supreme Court. And they are requesting the Supreme Court order the offending states to allow their legislatures to appoint their presidential electors.
> *Dodging State Legislatures Was Dodgy*
> Breitbart was the first major outlet with the story, and breaks down the argument the Lone Star State is making.
> Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.​In their lawsuit, Texas claims “certain officials in the Defendant States” presented the COVID pandemic “as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in balloting.” As streiff at RedState noted, “there’s no pandemic escape hatch in the constitution.”
> ~[snip]~
> *Going to the Supreme Court…a Long Shot, Perhaps*
> Texas approached the Supreme Court directly, Breitbart reports, “because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.”
> Is the Supreme Court going to hear the case? Twitchy has collected the early reaction of legal types, and the consensus seems to be it’s a long shot the Supreme Court will hear the case, let alone rule in Texas’ favor. Several commentators note that the suit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, not the state’s solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who would be the go-to person for suits like this.
> 
> 
> Comment:
> The  Roberts court will either determine that it's none of Texas' business how other states do stuff or that the legistlatures were in session and aware of the changes and did not act, therefore they are implicitly the method determined by the legislature to be appropriate and so once again, buzz of Texas.
> This case doesn’t require evidence, it hangs upon the law being changed illegally, before the election.
> Every American voter in is being disenfranchised in this National Election by the States who were grossly negligent in their duties to conduct a free and fair election.
> All States, who abided by their State Election Rules, should join with Texas and take the scoundrels to court.


Good luck with that.


----------



## Claudette

Skylar said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot not allowing cheating democrats to ignore the Constitution
> 
> Biden cannot and will not cheat his way to the Presidency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: we don't like the results of the election so we'll claim fraud without evidence and if the courts won't give us our way, we'll try and get the Republican state legislatures to install our candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh there's evidence all right. Its on another thread on this board. Look it up.
> 
> Texas sues PA, GA, and three others. Texas has a very good case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas has a shit case that is little more than theater for dipshits.
> 
> First, Texas doesn't have standing for the election laws in other states. This alone ends any viable legal challenge. But wait, there's more!
> 
> Second, the States  in question have found no violations of their own election laws. The issues have been adjudicated. Killing the legal challenge again. But lets kick the dead horse, shall we?
> 
> Third, if this were genuinely a constitutional challenge to mail in ballots and not a political stunt, Texas would have filed suit against ALL states that used mail in ballots. Including, say, California. They didn't. They targeted only the swing States. Stripping the suit of even its internal logic.
> 
> Fourth, the Doctrine of Laches. If Texas genuinely felt that these changes would have invalidated Texas votes, they could have filed suit months and months ago. Instead, they waited to see results of the election. And only then filed suits based on those results. That's not how the law works. If the harm is in the process, you don't want to see if you like the results of the process before you sue.
> 
> Fifth, there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud that the suit's logic is predicated on.
> 
> Sixth, the remedy that Texas is seeking is extreme. Delaying the electoral vote itself? Disenfranchising tens of millions of voters? Its absolutely unprecedented. Extreme remedies require extreme evidence. _And Texas has none._
> 
> Seventh, waiting until the Safe Harbor day to file the suit demonstrates that Texas has no real interest in pursuing their suit. As they waited until the last possible moment to file, when their suit had the least possibility of being heard and the remedy offered.
Click to expand...


If you say so. I'd bet the SC will be saying something entirely different. LOL


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

BlindBoo said:


> Officials in Georgia — where Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger recertified the state's election results again Monday after a recount — were quick to dismiss Paxton's allegations, as were leaders in the other three states named in the lawsuit.
> 
> "The allegations in the lawsuit are false and irresponsible," Georgia's deputy secretary of state, Jordan Fuchs, said in a statement Tuesday. "Texas alleges that there are 80,000 forged signatures on absentee ballots in Georgia, but they don’t bring forward a single person who this happened to. That’s because it didn’t happen."
> 
> Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel dismissed Paxton's suit as "a publicity stunt, not a serious legal pleading."
> 
> "Mr. Paxton’s actions are beneath the dignity of the office of Attorney General and the people of the great state of Texas," she said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In new lawsuit, Texas contests election results in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania
> 
> 
> Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" in the Electoral College. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, experts say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org


Michigan and Georgia, two of the culprits, are claiming they are innocent of all charges.
You know how to settle this dispute? Get a court, like the US Supreme Court, to hear the case
and make a decision based on evidence.

Then we'll see if Raffensperger and Nessel have a legal leg to stand on.

Isn't that just what Texas wants too? Problem solved! Everyone goes home happy...except for Georgia and Michigan. And Pennsylvania, and Arizona. And Wisconsin.


----------



## Skylar

Claudette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot not allowing cheating democrats to ignore the Constitution
> 
> Biden cannot and will not cheat his way to the Presidency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: we don't like the results of the election so we'll claim fraud without evidence and if the courts won't give us our way, we'll try and get the Republican state legislatures to install our candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh there's evidence all right. Its on another thread on this board. Look it up.
> 
> Texas sues PA, GA, and three others. Texas has a very good case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas has a shit case that is little more than theater for dipshits.
> 
> First, Texas doesn't have standing for the election laws in other states. This alone ends any viable legal challenge. But wait, there's more!
> 
> Second, the States  in question have found no violations of their own election laws. The issues have been adjudicated. Killing the legal challenge again. But lets kick the dead horse, shall we?
> 
> Third, if this were genuinely a constitutional challenge to mail in ballots and not a political stunt, Texas would have filed suit against ALL states that used mail in ballots. Including, say, California. They didn't. They targeted only the swing States. Stripping the suit of even its internal logic.
> 
> Fourth, the Doctrine of Laches. If Texas genuinely felt that these changes would have invalidated Texas votes, they could have filed suit months and months ago. Instead, they waited to see results of the election. And only then filed suits based on those results. That's not how the law works. If the harm is in the process, you don't want to see if you like the results of the process before you sue.
> 
> Fifth, there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud that the suit's logic is predicated on.
> 
> Sixth, the remedy that Texas is seeking is extreme. Delaying the electoral vote itself? Disenfranchising tens of millions of voters? Its absolutely unprecedented. Extreme remedies require extreme evidence. _And Texas has none._
> 
> Seventh, waiting until the Safe Harbor day to file the suit demonstrates that Texas has no real interest in pursuing their suit. As they waited until the last possible moment to file, when their suit had the least possibility of being heard and the remedy offered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you say so. I'd bet the SC will be saying something entirely different. LOL
Click to expand...


The petition for the writ of certiorari hasn't been granted.

We're explaining to you why.


----------



## martybegan

Coyote said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
Click to expand...


Or give up and let possible fraud win the day. 

I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning. 

Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.


----------



## JLW

For the OP:


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
Click to expand...


What fraud?

There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.


----------



## Blaine Sweeter

Rambunctious said:


> This will go directly to the supreme court....



Don't hold your breath.
Billy Barr has already ruled on it.  
SCOTUS will defer to him.


----------



## toobfreak

busybee01 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
Click to expand...



Hey Flaming Butthole Bee, they don't HAVE to prove any fraud.  It's an appellate case going straight to the Supreme Court that I don't see how they can refuse to hear it because the very constitutionality of all future elections are at stake!  And the states being sued have already proven it!  There is no denying it!


----------



## Coyote

martybegan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
Click to expand...

46 plus court cases.  No fraud.
DoJ/Barr, no fraud.
Republican election who ran those elections, no fraud.

At what does this become nothing more than a transpatent attempt to overturn a legitimate election and install rather than elect, a president?


..


----------



## mascale

"Original Jurisdiction" is not a favorite concept, historically, at the Supreme Court.  Texas created no lower court casework on which to rely.  Anyone could guess that the matter could take years to resolve.  More glaringly than in the other lawsuits already tossed--there is no credible evidence on which to rely.  The U.S. Attorney General has found nothing on which any court can rely.  There is nothing cited which creates even any standing to file the lawsuit at all.  Texas claims the states relied on Pandemic Expeditious Remedy.  "Pandemic" is not a Constitutional issue, even.  Emergency measures are generally thought local, endemic to local jurisdictions.

"Crow, James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred!
(Think of Moses learning Egyptian skills and arts, per Acts 7, as a kid growing up.  Arithmetic and subjugations skills were likely included.  So Among the Terrorist Imperial-Intending, "Chosen People:"  Of Pharaoh's Egyptian ruling Houses:  Deut 23:  19-20--likely an Egyptian, local matter!)


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
Click to expand...


Texas is saying the States in question violated the rules. This led to the increased chance of fraud. 

There is no hard evidence YET, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence you ignore.  You act like the people who did it wouldn't try to hide it.


----------



## martybegan

Coyote said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 46 plus court cases.  No fraud.
> DoJ/Barr, no fraud.
> Republican election who ran those elections, no fraud.
> 
> At what does this become nothing more than a transpatent attempt to overturn a legitimate election and install rather than elect, a president?
> 
> 
> ..
Click to expand...


Then what I am asking for will show that. Why not go through the process?

I know getting the election overturned is near impossible, and would probably result in riots and counter-riots. 

I want the fucking truth, something you don't seem to care about because you got what you wanted.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court overrule  Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
Click to expand...


Way to shoot off your mouth with assertions about a topic you haven't bothered to be informed on.  Yeah, that doesn't make you look like a moron at all.

Had you bothered to read the OP article, rather than just skimming the headline and running off to assert how it's all illegal because you don't like it, you would know that Texas filed this lawsuit with the US Supreme Court on the basis of violations of the US Constitution.

So yeah, it's illegal to the states in question, no one is impressed by state courts ruling that actions they themselves have taken are perfectly fine, state courts are inferior to the US Supreme Court anyway and can be reversed by them, and Texas is asking the Supreme Court to overrule these states on laws that apply to EVERYONE.

Basically, you were not only wrong, but laughably and ignorantly wrong, on every point you tried to assert.  Bravo!!


----------



## Coyote

martybegan said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is saying the States in question violated the rules. This led to the increased chance of fraud.
> 
> There is no hard evidence YET, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence you ignore.  You act like the people who did it wouldn't try to hide it.
Click to expand...

States make their own rukes and they have been upheld.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is saying the States in question violated the rules. This led to the increased chance of fraud.
> 
> There is no hard evidence YET, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence you ignore.  You act like the people who did it wouldn't try to hide it.
Click to expand...


The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the States have found no violation of their own rules. 

Texas lacks standing to challenge the internal rules of another State.


----------



## toobfreak

Coyote said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 46 plus court cases.  No fraud.
> DoJ/Barr, no fraud.
> Republican election who ran those elections, no fraud.
> 
> At what does this become nothing more than a transpatent attempt to overturn a legitimate election and install rather than elect, a president?
> 
> 
> ..
Click to expand...

0 cases no fraud.  Not one court has examined the evidence ruling that it doesn't show fraud.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.
> 
> You are just flailing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The case is being made, asking for a writ at this point is just trying to ignore the merits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The petition for the writ has been submitted. The petition for the writ has not been granted.
> 
> We're explaining to you why.
Click to expand...


No, you're explaining to us what you think should be the reasons why.  The actual reason that the writ hasn't been granted yet is because they only just filed it, you fucking moron.

I guess this answers the question of whether or not public schools still teach people how to tell time.


----------



## Rambunctious

Blaine Sweeter said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will go directly to the supreme court....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath.
> Billy Barr has already ruled on it.
> SCOTUS will defer to him.
Click to expand...

Bullshit....Barr is not a judge...you are going to be very angry in a week or so....


----------



## Cecilie1200

iceberg said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
> 
> 
> 
> Bush v Gore was the last case I can remember in which basic matters of election fraud and denied equal protection was addressed by the court.
> 
> Remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush V. Gore wasn't adjudicated by a State court.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn you're dumb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm rubber, you're glue, Billy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oddly enough this is the most intelligent thing you've said yet.
Click to expand...


Not a high bar for him to clear.


----------



## WelfareQueen

Coyote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot not allowing cheating democrats to ignore the Constitution
> 
> Biden cannot and will not cheat his way to the Presidency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: we don't like the results of the election so we'll claim fraud without evidence and if the courts won't give us our way, we'll try and get the Republican state legislatures to install our candidate.
Click to expand...


You do not understand the underlying legal issue.  You want to focus on fraud because it is difficult to prove.  I will make this as simple as possible.

In your State if you mailed in a ballot you have the Constitutional Right to have your ballot evaluated and read the same as any other legally cast mail in ballot in your State.  Do you understand?  

If my ballot is read or evaluated differently than your ballot and we vote in the same State than both of our Rights have been violated.  Also, in every State only the Legislature can create rules of election.  Not Governors, not State Attorney Generals, not local election officials.  That is specified in the US Constitution.  

This is very simple.  Please tell me you at least understand these two very basic ideas.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
Click to expand...

And making up Russia and forging evidence and spying did what for the good of the country? At least the right IS going 5hrough the courts vs the dems route.


----------



## BlindBoo

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Officials in Georgia — where Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger recertified the state's election results again Monday after a recount — were quick to dismiss Paxton's allegations, as were leaders in the other three states named in the lawsuit.
> 
> "The allegations in the lawsuit are false and irresponsible," Georgia's deputy secretary of state, Jordan Fuchs, said in a statement Tuesday. "Texas alleges that there are 80,000 forged signatures on absentee ballots in Georgia, but they don’t bring forward a single person who this happened to. That’s because it didn’t happen."
> 
> Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel dismissed Paxton's suit as "a publicity stunt, not a serious legal pleading."
> 
> "Mr. Paxton’s actions are beneath the dignity of the office of Attorney General and the people of the great state of Texas," she said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In new lawsuit, Texas contests election results in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania
> 
> 
> Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" in the Electoral College. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, experts say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michigan and Georgia, two of the culprits, are claiming they are innocent of all charges.
> You know how to settle this dispute? Get a court, like the US Supreme Court, to hear the case
> and make a decision based on evidence.
> 
> Then we'll see if Raffensperger and Nessel have a legal leg to stand on.
> 
> Isn't that just what Texas wants too? Problem solved! Everyone goes home happy...except for Georgia and Michigan. And Pennsylvania, and Arizona. And Wisconsin.
Click to expand...


Michigan voters approved the mail in ballots for all in 2018.  Nothing unconstitutional about that.


----------



## Skylar

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court overrule  Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way to shoot off your mouth with assertions about a topic you haven't bothered to be informed on.  Yeah, that doesn't make you look like a moron at all.
> 
> Had you bothered to read the OP article, rather than just skimming the headline and running off to assert how it's all illegal because you don't like it, you would know that Texas filed this lawsuit with the US Supreme Court on the basis of violations of the US Constitution.
> 
> So yeah, it's illegal to the states in question, no one is impressed by state courts ruling that actions they themselves have taken are perfectly fine, state courts are inferior to the US Supreme Court anyway and can be reversed by them, and Texas is asking the Supreme Court to overrule these states on laws that apply to EVERYONE.
> 
> Basically, you were not only wrong, but laughably and ignorantly wrong, on every point you tried to assert.  Bravo!!
Click to expand...


Its illegal to the States in question.....according to who?

Not the states. The Texas petition for writ is a rehash of the same issues that have already been adjudicated in the State courts. And the State courts found no violation. 

Texas lacks the standing to challenge the validity of the rulings in other states.


----------



## toobfreak

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas is saying the States in question violated the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> And the States have found no violation of their own rules.
Click to expand...




 

 Too funny. The states who used illegal discriminatory laws to slant the outcome in Biden's favor have found no problem with their own laws? 

 




And the only states to have used such scurrilous tactics are the only ones where Biden did well in and were critical to his winning?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull shit----------the dems making up thousands of fraudulent votes to steal election certainly harms everyone else in other states as it is used to steal elections and in this case puts a communist sell out Joe biden in to sell us all down the river not to mention allows him and his family to continue to rape little girls.   It harms texas....and florida.....and alaska and everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts have found nothing to substantiate any claim Trump ia making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it's fortunate that Texas' lawsuit isn't about Trump or his claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a rehash of many of the legal arguments challenging the election in the State courts.
> 
> The State court rejected the legal arguments. The issue has been adjudicated. No violations have ever been found.
Click to expand...


I just heard, "I got the decision I wanted, so it's settled, you don't get to ask anyone else!"

Somehow, I'm not impressed.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees

Every single state should follow suit. These irregularities aren’t only about those individual states. They affect the entire country.
Democrat sheep are too phony and criminal to acknowledge this.
Good for Texas!


----------



## BlindBoo

WelfareQueen said:


> Also, in every State only the Legislature can create rules of election.



Nope.  They could decide how a state chooses it's presidential electors.  Not how the elections are run in the States.  Each states legislature's have bound it's electors to the popular vote.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is saying the States in question violated the rules. This led to the increased chance of fraud.
> 
> There is no hard evidence YET, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence you ignore.  You act like the people who did it wouldn't try to hide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the States have found no violation of their own rules.
> 
> Texas lacks standing to challenge the internal rules of another State.
Click to expand...


What part of "US Constitution" are you having problems with?  Is it just the ingrained leftist hatred of the document itself that makes you blind to any mention of it?

State election rules are subject to Constitutional restrictions.  So no matter how much you prattle on about "They didn't violate their own rules, so it's okay, because I've decided THAT'S what the issue is", it's not going to change the fact that the ACTUAL issue is that the changes violate the US Constitution.

Which you would know, if you had bothered to read the article before setting out to lecture us all on what you "know" is going on based on what you want to believe.

Oh, also, you can assert, "Texas has no standing, so THERE!" until your face turns blue - and feel free.  But that's for the Supreme Court to decide, not you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court overrule  Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way to shoot off your mouth with assertions about a topic you haven't bothered to be informed on.  Yeah, that doesn't make you look like a moron at all.
> 
> Had you bothered to read the OP article, rather than just skimming the headline and running off to assert how it's all illegal because you don't like it, you would know that Texas filed this lawsuit with the US Supreme Court on the basis of violations of the US Constitution.
> 
> So yeah, it's illegal to the states in question, no one is impressed by state courts ruling that actions they themselves have taken are perfectly fine, state courts are inferior to the US Supreme Court anyway and can be reversed by them, and Texas is asking the Supreme Court to overrule these states on laws that apply to EVERYONE.
> 
> Basically, you were not only wrong, but laughably and ignorantly wrong, on every point you tried to assert.  Bravo!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its illegal to the States in question.....according to who?
> 
> Not the states. The Texas petition for writ is a rehash of the same issues that have already been adjudicated in the State courts. And the State courts found no violation.
> 
> Texas lacks the standing to challenge the validity of the rulings in other states.
Click to expand...


Already answered in the post you're "responding to", although obviously you're doing so without having read it first.

I don't repeat myself, and certainly not for fools like you.  Try reading something before you start talking about it, fucktard.


----------



## WelfareQueen

BlindBoo said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Officials in Georgia — where Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger recertified the state's election results again Monday after a recount — were quick to dismiss Paxton's allegations, as were leaders in the other three states named in the lawsuit.
> 
> "The allegations in the lawsuit are false and irresponsible," Georgia's deputy secretary of state, Jordan Fuchs, said in a statement Tuesday. "Texas alleges that there are 80,000 forged signatures on absentee ballots in Georgia, but they don’t bring forward a single person who this happened to. That’s because it didn’t happen."
> 
> Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel dismissed Paxton's suit as "a publicity stunt, not a serious legal pleading."
> 
> "Mr. Paxton’s actions are beneath the dignity of the office of Attorney General and the people of the great state of Texas," she said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In new lawsuit, Texas contests election results in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania
> 
> 
> Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" in the Electoral College. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, experts say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michigan and Georgia, two of the culprits, are claiming they are innocent of all charges.
> You know how to settle this dispute? Get a court, like the US Supreme Court, to hear the case
> and make a decision based on evidence.
> 
> Then we'll see if Raffensperger and Nessel have a legal leg to stand on.
> 
> Isn't that just what Texas wants too? Problem solved! Everyone goes home happy...except for Georgia and Michigan. And Pennsylvania, and Arizona. And Wisconsin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Michigan voters approved the mail in ballots for all in 2018.  Nothing unconstitutional about that.
Click to expand...


But if those mail in ballots were evaluated differently in different jurisdictions in Michigan than voters Constitutional rights were violated.


----------



## Skylar

toobfreak said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas is saying the States in question violated the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> And the States have found no violation of their own rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 426649 View attachment 426649 Too funny. The states who used illegal discriminatory laws to slant the outcome in Biden's favor have found no problem with their own laws? View attachment 426649 View attachment 426649
> 
> 
> And the only states to have used such scurrilous tactics are the only ones where Biden did well in and were critical to his winning?  View attachment 426650
Click to expand...


Used illegal  discriminatory laws.....according to who? 

These issues have already been adjudicated by the States. They were found to be perfectly legal. The Supreme Court has refused petitions for writ on appeals of the similar issues from actors within the State who may actually have standing.

Texas doesn't even have that. 

_Good luck._


----------



## The Original Tree

Lysistrata said:


> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.


*Equal Protection Under The Law.....*

*Dummy*


----------



## Skylar

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court overrule  Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way to shoot off your mouth with assertions about a topic you haven't bothered to be informed on.  Yeah, that doesn't make you look like a moron at all.
> 
> Had you bothered to read the OP article, rather than just skimming the headline and running off to assert how it's all illegal because you don't like it, you would know that Texas filed this lawsuit with the US Supreme Court on the basis of violations of the US Constitution.
> 
> So yeah, it's illegal to the states in question, no one is impressed by state courts ruling that actions they themselves have taken are perfectly fine, state courts are inferior to the US Supreme Court anyway and can be reversed by them, and Texas is asking the Supreme Court to overrule these states on laws that apply to EVERYONE.
> 
> Basically, you were not only wrong, but laughably and ignorantly wrong, on every point you tried to assert.  Bravo!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its illegal to the States in question.....according to who?
> 
> Not the states. The Texas petition for writ is a rehash of the same issues that have already been adjudicated in the State courts. And the State courts found no violation.
> 
> Texas lacks the standing to challenge the validity of the rulings in other states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already answered in the post you're "responding to", although obviously you're doing so without having read it first.
> 
> I don't repeat myself, and certainly not for fools like you.  Try reading something before you start talking about it, fucktard.
Click to expand...


No, you simply 'declared' that it was illegal. There's no such legal finding. Not by the State courts. Not by the state legislatures. Not by the Supreme Court.

Even Texas' petition for writ of cert is little more than an accusation. Not a legal finding.

So I ask again.....illegal according to who? You simply saying it must be so doesn't amount to much.


----------



## WelfareQueen

BlindBoo said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, in every State only the Legislature can create rules of election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  They could decide how a state chooses it's presidential electors.  Not how the elections are run in the States.  Each states legislature's have bound it's electors to the popular vote.
Click to expand...


False.  Only State Legislature's can create, amend, or nullify election laws in their State.  Governors, State Attorney Generals, and local election officials have no such legal authority.


----------



## miketx

busybee01 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
Click to expand...

You smell that? It's called desperation and fear ya lying commie turd.


----------



## miketx

Skylar said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court overrule  Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way to shoot off your mouth with assertions about a topic you haven't bothered to be informed on.  Yeah, that doesn't make you look like a moron at all.
> 
> Had you bothered to read the OP article, rather than just skimming the headline and running off to assert how it's all illegal because you don't like it, you would know that Texas filed this lawsuit with the US Supreme Court on the basis of violations of the US Constitution.
> 
> So yeah, it's illegal to the states in question, no one is impressed by state courts ruling that actions they themselves have taken are perfectly fine, state courts are inferior to the US Supreme Court anyway and can be reversed by them, and Texas is asking the Supreme Court to overrule these states on laws that apply to EVERYONE.
> 
> Basically, you were not only wrong, but laughably and ignorantly wrong, on every point you tried to assert.  Bravo!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its illegal to the States in question.....according to who?
> 
> Not the states. The Texas petition for writ is a rehash of the same issues that have already been adjudicated in the State courts. And the State courts found no violation.
> 
> Texas lacks the standing to challenge the validity of the rulings in other states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already answered in the post you're "responding to", although obviously you're doing so without having read it first.
> 
> I don't repeat myself, and certainly not for fools like you.  Try reading something before you start talking about it, fucktard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you simply 'declared' that it was illegal. There's no such legal finding. Not by the State courts. Not by the state legislatures. Not by the Supreme Court.
> 
> Even Texas' petition for writ of cert is little more than an accusation. Not a legal finding.
> 
> So I ask again.....illegal according to who? You simply saying it must be so doesn't amount to much.
Click to expand...

That smell is your desperation and fear on steroids. Too bad mommie didn't coat hanger your ass.


----------



## Skylar

miketx said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You smell that? It's called desperation and fear ya lying commie turd.
Click to expand...


Or.....your own wishful thinking?

By far, the most likely outcome of Texas' petition for writ is nothing. Just being denied.


----------



## d0gbreath

Everything is bigger in Texas. Including my embarrassment caused by Cruz and Paxton.

Trump won Texas, therefore, we're not going to allow other states to have a say in the matter.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot not allowing cheating democrats to ignore the Constitution
> 
> Biden cannot and will not cheat his way to the Presidency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: we don't like the results of the election so we'll claim fraud without evidence and if the courts won't give us our way, we'll try and get the Republican state legislatures to install our candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh there's evidence all right. Its on another thread on this board. Look it up.
> 
> Texas sues PA, GA, and three others. Texas has a very good case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas has a shit case that is little more than theater for dipshits.
> 
> First, Texas doesn't have standing for the election laws in other states. This alone ends any viable legal challenge. But wait, there's more!
> 
> Second, the States  in question have found no violations of their own election laws. The issues have been adjudicated. Killing the legal challenge again. But lets kick the dead horse, shall we?
> 
> Third, if this were genuinely a constitutional challenge to mail in ballots and not a political stunt, Texas would have filed suit against ALL states that used mail in ballots. Including, say, California. They didn't. They targeted only the swing States. Stripping the suit of even its internal logic.
> 
> Fourth, the Doctrine of Laches. If Texas genuinely felt that these changes would have invalidated Texas votes, they could have filed suit months and months ago. Instead, they waited to see results of the election. And only then filed suits based on those results. That's not how the law works. If the harm is in the process, you don't want to see if you like the results of the process before you sue.
> 
> Fifth, there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud that the suit's logic is predicated on.
> 
> Sixth, the remedy that Texas is seeking is extreme. Delaying the electoral vote itself? Disenfranchising tens of millions of voters? Its absolutely unprecedented. Extreme remedies require extreme evidence. _And Texas has none._
> 
> Seventh, waiting until the Safe Harbor day to file the suit demonstrates that Texas has no real interest in pursuing their suit. As they waited until the last possible moment to file, when their suit had the least possibility of being heard and the remedy offered.
Click to expand...

Texas *DOES *have standing in other states if their right to equal protection is effected by what
Michigan and Georgia does, for instance. By changing their own election law improperly those
five states disenfranchise every Trump voter in America!

Secondly you are arguing an asinine point. There is no indication AT ALL that those others states
took any interest in investigating how they were making a mockery of their own election laws.
Why would they find fault with what they were doing? This is absolutely idiotic!
It demonstrates what a shitty desperate thinker you are.

Three, mail in ballots are *not *the bone of contention! So why would this Texas challenge
take on something NOT being debated?
I'm running out of insults but trust me,
this is as asinine as anything else you've argued, if it can be called that.

Four, NO...this is your stupidest point! You keep setting the bar higher and higher.
Why would Texas argue months ago about something that only came to light with this presidential election?
Why wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald put under arrest months before he allegedly shot John F. Kennedy?
Is Texas at fault now for *not* being *prescient?* It doesn't get any more idiotic than this! I hope.

Five...there is .tons of evidence for voter fraud and the damage it did.
You wish there was none. The Dominion vote changing machines alone bury that bullshit where it can't stink up this post. There is SO much evidence of fraud and corruption.

Six, what is the remedy that Texas seeks? How do you remedy an election that is based on fraud
and constitutional illegalities and is at heart, profoundly crooked?
You must remove votes obtained illegally.

And seven, attacking the day Texas filed their suit is lame and pointless
No one is asking Biden to leave office once he somehow gets in.
If you find a man with his head in a noose is innocent of charges against him
is it better to wait until after he has had his neck snapped to bring the matter up?
Or before hand?

Seven bizarre points raised. Seven absurd points demolished by reason and logic.


----------



## miketx

Skylar said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You smell that? It's called desperation and fear ya lying commie turd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....your own wishful thinking?
> 
> By far, the most likely outcome of Texas' petition for writ is nothing. Just being denied.
Click to expand...

Fear, desperation, lies, that's all ya got.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Claudette said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
Click to expand...

Yes, most conservatives are truly this ignorant of our judicial system.


----------



## DukeU

BlindBoo said:


> While Michigan voters expanded mail ballot options to all voters by referendum in 2018, the state legislature did not make corresponding upstream and downstream policy changes to the election ecosystem that would facilitate a quicker, more efficient count. The Bipartisan Policy Center’s Task Force on Elections made several recommendations in January 2020 that align, in part, with those adopted in Michigan on September 24.
> 
> The bill package offers enhanced security for mail ballots, more processing time, correction of common voter errors, and better access for overseas military personnel and their spouses.



*Michigan Judge Extends Mailed Ballot Receipt Deadline In ...*


----------



## Thunk

Here is the genius of this lawsuit...

*Importantly, the Texas lawsuit presents a pure question of law.  It is not dependent upon disputed facts.  Although these unconstitutional changes to the election rules could have facilitated voter fraud, the State of Texas doesn’t need to prove a single case of fraud to win. It is enough that the four states violated the Constitution*.









						Kobach: Texas Case Challenges Election Directly at Supreme Court
					

On Monday, just before midnight, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit at the Supreme Court that is the most important election challenge yet.




					www.breitbart.com


----------



## LordBrownTrout

We need to secede.  Thats all.


----------



## WelfareQueen

Skylar said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You smell that? It's called desperation and fear ya lying commie turd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....your own wishful thinking?
> 
> By far, the most likely outcome of Texas' petition for writ is nothing. Just being denied.
Click to expand...


All legally cast votes must be evaluated in each State under exactly the same criteria.  Otherwise equal protection rights under the Constitution have been violated.  The Supreme Court already ruled this is the case in Bush v Gore. 

If Wayne County Michigan as an example used a different criteria to evaluate mail in votes than another County in Michigan that is a equal protection case. That is what the Supreme Court must decide.


----------



## PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic said:


> Christ_on_a_croissant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you bootlickers really think that the SCOTUS is going to overrule state law to turn over the election process to the state legislatures, you’re out of your fucking minds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's your lesson on the US Constitution:
> 
> 
> Not only has it been decided in the US Supreme Court that only the state legislature, and not any court, may alter or set the dates, but* this played an important role in the 2000 Gore v Bush case.
> 
> 
> 
> “U.S. Supreme Court
> 
> McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)
> 
> McPherson v. Blacker
> Agued Oct. 11, 1892* *Decided Oct. 17, 1892
> 
> 
> 
> “The validity of a state law* providing for the appointment of electors of President and Vice President having been drawn in question before the highest tribunal of a state as repugnant to the laws and Constitution of the United States, and that court having decided in favor of its validity, this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment under Rev.Stat. § 709. Under the second clause of *Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.*
> 
> 
> 
> Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court should require that no ballots received beyond the 5 o’clock deadline of election day be counted.
Click to expand...




This is really funny.....

...some imbecile put us the 'disagree' emoticon.


I provide the actual Supreme Court case, and state what the Constitution says.....


....and government school grads feel (I almost said 'think') they can 'disagree.



Some school system, huh?


----------



## Thunk

Rambunctious said:


> This will go directly to the supreme court....



Correct. 

One state suing 4 other states, there's nowhere else for it to go but the USSC.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Hidden said:


> Everything is bigger in Texas. Including my embarrassment caused by Cruz and Paxton.
> 
> Trump won Texas, therefore, we're not going to allow other states to have a say in the matter.


Even your own ignorance and lack of morals are bigger, newbie.

Is their a kiddie's forum you could sharpen your game up in?

Break election laws and you should have no standing or be able to disenfranchise every other voter in the nation. Is this puzzling for you?


----------



## Skylar

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot not allowing cheating democrats to ignore the Constitution
> 
> Biden cannot and will not cheat his way to the Presidency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: we don't like the results of the election so we'll claim fraud without evidence and if the courts won't give us our way, we'll try and get the Republican state legislatures to install our candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh there's evidence all right. Its on another thread on this board. Look it up.
> 
> Texas sues PA, GA, and three others. Texas has a very good case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas has a shit case that is little more than theater for dipshits.
> 
> First, Texas doesn't have standing for the election laws in other states. This alone ends any viable legal challenge. But wait, there's more!
> 
> Second, the States  in question have found no violations of their own election laws. The issues have been adjudicated. Killing the legal challenge again. But lets kick the dead horse, shall we?
> 
> Third, if this were genuinely a constitutional challenge to mail in ballots and not a political stunt, Texas would have filed suit against ALL states that used mail in ballots. Including, say, California. They didn't. They targeted only the swing States. Stripping the suit of even its internal logic.
> 
> Fourth, the Doctrine of Laches. If Texas genuinely felt that these changes would have invalidated Texas votes, they could have filed suit months and months ago. Instead, they waited to see results of the election. And only then filed suits based on those results. That's not how the law works. If the harm is in the process, you don't want to see if you like the results of the process before you sue.
> 
> Fifth, there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud that the suit's logic is predicated on.
> 
> Sixth, the remedy that Texas is seeking is extreme. Delaying the electoral vote itself? Disenfranchising tens of millions of voters? Its absolutely unprecedented. Extreme remedies require extreme evidence. _And Texas has none._
> 
> Seventh, waiting until the Safe Harbor day to file the suit demonstrates that Texas has no real interest in pursuing their suit. As they waited until the last possible moment to file, when their suit had the least possibility of being heard and the remedy offered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas *DOES *have standing in other states if their right to equal protection is effected by what
> Michigan and Georgia does, for instance. By changing their own election law improperly those
> five states disenfranchise every Trump voter in America!
Click to expand...


Nope. The rules that Texas is challenging are internal to each State. Texas doesn't get a say in how those rules are implemented outside of Texas. And the issues of raised by Texas are just rehashes of cases that have already been adjudicated in the State courts.

And rejected. There are no violations per the States themselves. And the rules for the election are internal to the State.

Its a closed loop. And Texas is outside the loop.



> Secondly you are arguing an asinine point. There is no indication AT ALL that those others states
> took any interest in investigating how they were making a mockery of their own election laws.
> Why would they find fault with what they were doing? This is absolutely idiotic!
> It demonstrates what a shitty desperate thinker you are.



The Supreme Court is not an investigatory court. Its an appeals court. If you're demanding investigations be redone to your satisfaction, you're confused on what the Supreme Court does.


----------



## Penelope

Tramp is still hitting on Dem states and mainly on blacks, and now Tx is.  Many whites supported Democrats.  We will never forget what  a loser Tx is.


----------



## Thunk

Blaine Sweeter said:


> Ha! Breitbart is so full of right-tard shit.



Poor poor filth melting down again   

Watch the presidency slipping thru your fingers


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

WelfareQueen said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You smell that? It's called desperation and fear ya lying commie turd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....your own wishful thinking?
> 
> By far, the most likely outcome of Texas' petition for writ is nothing. Just being denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All legally cast votes must be evaluated in each State under exactly the same criteria.  Otherwise equal protection rights under the Constitution have been violated.  The Supreme Court already ruled this is the case in Bush v Gore.
> 
> If Wayne County Michigan as an example used a different criteria to evaluate mail in votes than another County in Michigan that is a equal protection case. That is what the Supreme Court must decide.
Click to expand...

As hideous and repugnant as your signature avatar is your post is just as eloquent and well stated.


----------



## miketx

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, most conservatives are truly this ignorant of our judicial system.
Click to expand...

.


----------



## edthecynic

Thunk said:


> Here is the genius of this lawsuit...


Texas has NO standing. Obviously the GOP lies about their support for FEDERALISM! No surprise there!!!!!


----------



## BlindBoo

WelfareQueen said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, in every State only the Legislature can create rules of election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  They could decide how a state chooses it's presidential electors.  Not how the elections are run in the States.  Each states legislature's have bound it's electors to the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.  Only State Legislature's can create, amend, or nullify election laws in their State.  Governors, State Attorney Generals, and local election officials have no such legal authority.
Click to expand...


So Governor Whitmer didn't need to sign these bills?









						Michigan Makes Positive Election Law Changes | Bipartisan Policy Center
					

The Michigan legislature recently passed two bipartisan election laws and sent them to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) for her signature. Election officials initiated these…




					bipartisanpolicy.org


----------



## miketx

Skylar said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot not allowing cheating democrats to ignore the Constitution
> 
> Biden cannot and will not cheat his way to the Presidency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: we don't like the results of the election so we'll claim fraud without evidence and if the courts won't give us our way, we'll try and get the Republican state legislatures to install our candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh there's evidence all right. Its on another thread on this board. Look it up.
> 
> Texas sues PA, GA, and three others. Texas has a very good case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas has a shit case that is little more than theater for dipshits.
> 
> First, Texas doesn't have standing for the election laws in other states. This alone ends any viable legal challenge. But wait, there's more!
> 
> Second, the States  in question have found no violations of their own election laws. The issues have been adjudicated. Killing the legal challenge again. But lets kick the dead horse, shall we?
> 
> Third, if this were genuinely a constitutional challenge to mail in ballots and not a political stunt, Texas would have filed suit against ALL states that used mail in ballots. Including, say, California. They didn't. They targeted only the swing States. Stripping the suit of even its internal logic.
> 
> Fourth, the Doctrine of Laches. If Texas genuinely felt that these changes would have invalidated Texas votes, they could have filed suit months and months ago. Instead, they waited to see results of the election. And only then filed suits based on those results. That's not how the law works. If the harm is in the process, you don't want to see if you like the results of the process before you sue.
> 
> Fifth, there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud that the suit's logic is predicated on.
> 
> Sixth, the remedy that Texas is seeking is extreme. Delaying the electoral vote itself? Disenfranchising tens of millions of voters? Its absolutely unprecedented. Extreme remedies require extreme evidence. _And Texas has none._
> 
> Seventh, waiting until the Safe Harbor day to file the suit demonstrates that Texas has no real interest in pursuing their suit. As they waited until the last possible moment to file, when their suit had the least possibility of being heard and the remedy offered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas *DOES *have standing in other states if their right to equal protection is effected by what
> Michigan and Georgia does, for instance. By changing their own election law improperly those
> five states disenfranchise every Trump voter in America!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. The rules that Texas is challenging are internal to each State. Texas doesn't get a say in how those rules are implemented outside of Texas. And the issues of raised by Texas are just rehashes of cases that have already been adjudicated in the State courts.
> 
> And rejected. There are no violations per the States themselves. And the rules for the election are internal to the State.
> 
> Its a closed loop. And Texas is outside the loop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly you are arguing an asinine point. There is no indication AT ALL that those others states
> took any interest in investigating how they were making a mockery of their own election laws.
> Why would they find fault with what they were doing? This is absolutely idiotic!
> It demonstrates what a shitty desperate thinker you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is not an investigatory court. Its an appeals court. If you're demanding investigations be redone to your satisfaction, you're confused on what the Supreme Court does.
Click to expand...

Keep on spewing the fear is overwhelming you.


----------



## Skylar

WelfareQueen said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You smell that? It's called desperation and fear ya lying commie turd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....your own wishful thinking?
> 
> By far, the most likely outcome of Texas' petition for writ is nothing. Just being denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All legally cast votes must be evaluated in each State under exactly the same criteria.
Click to expand...


Legally cast, according to who? Again, *election rules are internal to each State. *And the States have found that the ballots cast and counted for their certified tallies were legal. The issues have already been adjudicated in each state and no 'illegal' ballots have been counted.

That Texas says 'uh-uh' is legally meaningless. As it has no say in any States election laws save its own.



> If Wayne County Michigan as an example used a different criteria to evaluate mail in votes than another County in Michigan that is a equal protection case. That is what the Supreme Court must decide.



The Supreme Court is under no obligation to 'decide' anything. Almost all petitions for writs are denied.

By far, the most likely outcome for this writ is the same: Denial.


----------



## mdk

Be sure to have your clutching pearls ready when the Supreme Court doesn’t grant certiorari.


----------



## Billiejeens

Skylar said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot not allowing cheating democrats to ignore the Constitution
> 
> Biden cannot and will not cheat his way to the Presidency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: we don't like the results of the election so we'll claim fraud without evidence and if the courts won't give us our way, we'll try and get the Republican state legislatures to install our candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh there's evidence all right. Its on another thread on this board. Look it up.
> 
> Texas sues PA, GA, and three others. Texas has a very good case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas has a shit case that is little more than theater for dipshits.
> 
> First, Texas doesn't have standing for the election laws in other states. This alone ends any viable legal challenge. But wait, there's more!
> 
> Second, the States  in question have found no violations of their own election laws. The issues have been adjudicated. Killing the legal challenge again. But lets kick the dead horse, shall we?
> 
> Third, if this were genuinely a constitutional challenge to mail in ballots and not a political stunt, Texas would have filed suit against ALL states that used mail in ballots. Including, say, California. They didn't. They targeted only the swing States. Stripping the suit of even its internal logic.
> 
> Fourth, the Doctrine of Laches. If Texas genuinely felt that these changes would have invalidated Texas votes, they could have filed suit months and months ago. Instead, they waited to see results of the election. And only then filed suits based on those results. That's not how the law works. If the harm is in the process, you don't want to see if you like the results of the process before you sue.
> 
> Fifth, there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud that the suit's logic is predicated on.
> 
> Sixth, the remedy that Texas is seeking is extreme. Delaying the electoral vote itself? Disenfranchising tens of millions of voters? Its absolutely unprecedented. Extreme remedies require extreme evidence. _And Texas has none._
> 
> Seventh, waiting until the Safe Harbor day to file the suit demonstrates that Texas has no real interest in pursuing their suit. As they waited until the last possible moment to file, when their suit had the least possibility of being heard and the remedy offered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you say so. I'd bet the SC will be saying something entirely different. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The petition for the writ of certiorari hasn't been granted.
> 
> We're explaining to you why.
Click to expand...


You're not
So stop


----------



## miketx

Skylar said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You smell that? It's called desperation and fear ya lying commie turd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....your own wishful thinking?
> 
> By far, the most likely outcome of Texas' petition for writ is nothing. Just being denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All legally cast votes must be evaluated in each State under exactly the same criteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legally case, according to who? Again, *election rules are internal to each State. *And the States have found that the ballots cast and counted for their certified tallies were legal. The issues have already been adjudicated in each state and no 'illegal' ballots have been counted.
> 
> That Texas says 'uh-uh' is legally meaningless. As it has no say in any States election laws save its own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Wayne County Michigan as an example used a different criteria to evaluate mail in votes than another County in Michigan that is a equal protection case. That is what the Supreme Court must decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is under no obligation to 'decide' anything. Almost all petitions for writs are denied.
> 
> By far, the most likely outcome for this writ is the same: Denial.
Click to expand...

yes, you chinese are in denial.


----------



## Billiejeens

miketx said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot not allowing cheating democrats to ignore the Constitution
> 
> Biden cannot and will not cheat his way to the Presidency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: we don't like the results of the election so we'll claim fraud without evidence and if the courts won't give us our way, we'll try and get the Republican state legislatures to install our candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh there's evidence all right. Its on another thread on this board. Look it up.
> 
> Texas sues PA, GA, and three others. Texas has a very good case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas has a shit case that is little more than theater for dipshits.
> 
> First, Texas doesn't have standing for the election laws in other states. This alone ends any viable legal challenge. But wait, there's more!
> 
> Second, the States  in question have found no violations of their own election laws. The issues have been adjudicated. Killing the legal challenge again. But lets kick the dead horse, shall we?
> 
> Third, if this were genuinely a constitutional challenge to mail in ballots and not a political stunt, Texas would have filed suit against ALL states that used mail in ballots. Including, say, California. They didn't. They targeted only the swing States. Stripping the suit of even its internal logic.
> 
> Fourth, the Doctrine of Laches. If Texas genuinely felt that these changes would have invalidated Texas votes, they could have filed suit months and months ago. Instead, they waited to see results of the election. And only then filed suits based on those results. That's not how the law works. If the harm is in the process, you don't want to see if you like the results of the process before you sue.
> 
> Fifth, there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud that the suit's logic is predicated on.
> 
> Sixth, the remedy that Texas is seeking is extreme. Delaying the electoral vote itself? Disenfranchising tens of millions of voters? Its absolutely unprecedented. Extreme remedies require extreme evidence. _And Texas has none._
> 
> Seventh, waiting until the Safe Harbor day to file the suit demonstrates that Texas has no real interest in pursuing their suit. As they waited until the last possible moment to file, when their suit had the least possibility of being heard and the remedy offered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas *DOES *have standing in other states if their right to equal protection is effected by what
> Michigan and Georgia does, for instance. By changing their own election law improperly those
> five states disenfranchise every Trump voter in America!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. The rules that Texas is challenging are internal to each State. Texas doesn't get a say in how those rules are implemented outside of Texas. And the issues of raised by Texas are just rehashes of cases that have already been adjudicated in the State courts.
> 
> And rejected. There are no violations per the States themselves. And the rules for the election are internal to the State.
> 
> Its a closed loop. And Texas is outside the loop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly you are arguing an asinine point. There is no indication AT ALL that those others states
> took any interest in investigating how they were making a mockery of their own election laws.
> Why would they find fault with what they were doing? This is absolutely idiotic!
> It demonstrates what a shitty desperate thinker you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is not an investigatory court. Its an appeals court. If you're demanding investigations be redone to your satisfaction, you're confused on what the Supreme Court does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep on spewing the fear is overwhelming you.
Click to expand...


That one has gone ape shit.


----------



## bendog

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, most conservatives are truly this ignorant of our judicial system.
Click to expand...

Texas can't rule on what another state is doing in an election.


----------



## BlindBoo

Hidden said:


> Everything is bigger in Texas. Including my embarrassment caused by Cruz and Paxton.
> 
> Trump won Texas, therefore, we're not going to allow other states to have a say in the matter.



Banana Republicans know their days are numbered in Texas


----------



## Skylar

Billiejeens said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot not allowing cheating democrats to ignore the Constitution
> 
> Biden cannot and will not cheat his way to the Presidency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: we don't like the results of the election so we'll claim fraud without evidence and if the courts won't give us our way, we'll try and get the Republican state legislatures to install our candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh there's evidence all right. Its on another thread on this board. Look it up.
> 
> Texas sues PA, GA, and three others. Texas has a very good case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas has a shit case that is little more than theater for dipshits.
> 
> First, Texas doesn't have standing for the election laws in other states. This alone ends any viable legal challenge. But wait, there's more!
> 
> Second, the States  in question have found no violations of their own election laws. The issues have been adjudicated. Killing the legal challenge again. But lets kick the dead horse, shall we?
> 
> Third, if this were genuinely a constitutional challenge to mail in ballots and not a political stunt, Texas would have filed suit against ALL states that used mail in ballots. Including, say, California. They didn't. They targeted only the swing States. Stripping the suit of even its internal logic.
> 
> Fourth, the Doctrine of Laches. If Texas genuinely felt that these changes would have invalidated Texas votes, they could have filed suit months and months ago. Instead, they waited to see results of the election. And only then filed suits based on those results. That's not how the law works. If the harm is in the process, you don't want to see if you like the results of the process before you sue.
> 
> Fifth, there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud that the suit's logic is predicated on.
> 
> Sixth, the remedy that Texas is seeking is extreme. Delaying the electoral vote itself? Disenfranchising tens of millions of voters? Its absolutely unprecedented. Extreme remedies require extreme evidence. _And Texas has none._
> 
> Seventh, waiting until the Safe Harbor day to file the suit demonstrates that Texas has no real interest in pursuing their suit. As they waited until the last possible moment to file, when their suit had the least possibility of being heard and the remedy offered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas *DOES *have standing in other states if their right to equal protection is effected by what
> Michigan and Georgia does, for instance. By changing their own election law improperly those
> five states disenfranchise every Trump voter in America!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. The rules that Texas is challenging are internal to each State. Texas doesn't get a say in how those rules are implemented outside of Texas. And the issues of raised by Texas are just rehashes of cases that have already been adjudicated in the State courts.
> 
> And rejected. There are no violations per the States themselves. And the rules for the election are internal to the State.
> 
> Its a closed loop. And Texas is outside the loop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly you are arguing an asinine point. There is no indication AT ALL that those others states
> took any interest in investigating how they were making a mockery of their own election laws.
> Why would they find fault with what they were doing? This is absolutely idiotic!
> It demonstrates what a shitty desperate thinker you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is not an investigatory court. Its an appeals court. If you're demanding investigations be redone to your satisfaction, you're confused on what the Supreme Court does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep on spewing the fear is overwhelming you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That one has gone ape shit.
Click to expand...


I think you may be projecting a tad. 

As I've said, this entire petition for writ is just theater for dipshits.


----------



## d0gbreath

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Hidden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything is bigger in Texas. Including my embarrassment caused by Cruz and Paxton.
> 
> Trump won Texas, therefore, we're not going to allow other states to have a say in the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Even your own ignorance and lack of morals are bigger, newbie.
> 
> Is their a kiddie's forum you could sharpen your game up in?
> 
> Break election laws and you should have no standing or be able to disenfranchise every other voter in the nation. Is this puzzling for you?
Click to expand...

Your high horse puzzles me. We're only disenfranchising 73M, not "every other voter in the nation." The moral majority of 81M voters agrees with me.


----------



## Billiejeens

This case has nothing to do with fraud

Menton fraud in this thread -  you are an idiot.

Laws were made
Laws were not followed

Catch on?


----------



## Skylar

Doc7505 said:


> *Don’t Mess with Texas!
> Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures*
> *Texas goes directly to the Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to order these swing states with voting irregularities to allow their legislatures to appoint presidential electors.*​
> Don't Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures | The Stream
> 8 Dec 2020 ~~ By Al Perrotta
> ~[snip]~
> 
> Just before midnight, the State of Texas threw its massive weight into the election fraud fight. Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds their ad-hoc changes to election procedures were unconstitutional. And as a result, violated the rights of Texans and those in other states that followed the constitution. Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
> What’s more, Texas isn’t fiddling around with lower courts. They marched straight to the Supreme Court. And they are requesting the Supreme Court order the offending states to allow their legislatures to appoint their presidential electors.
> *Dodging State Legislatures Was Dodgy*
> Breitbart was the first major outlet with the story, and breaks down the argument the Lone Star State is making.
> Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.​In their lawsuit, Texas claims “certain officials in the Defendant States” presented the COVID pandemic “as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in balloting.” As streiff at RedState noted, “there’s no pandemic escape hatch in the constitution.”
> ~[snip]~
> *Going to the Supreme Court…a Long Shot, Perhaps*
> Texas approached the Supreme Court directly, Breitbart reports, “because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.”
> Is the Supreme Court going to hear the case? Twitchy has collected the early reaction of legal types, and the consensus seems to be it’s a long shot the Supreme Court will hear the case, let alone rule in Texas’ favor. Several commentators note that the suit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, not the state’s solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who would be the go-to person for suits like this.
> 
> 
> Comment:
> The  Roberts court will either determine that it's none of Texas' business how other states do stuff or that the legistlatures were in session and aware of the changes and did not act, therefore they are implicitly the method determined by the legislature to be appropriate and so once again, buzz of Texas.
> This case doesn’t require evidence, it hangs upon the law being changed illegally, before the election.
> Every American voter in is being disenfranchised in this National Election by the States who were grossly negligent in their duties to conduct a free and fair election.
> All States, who abided by their State Election Rules, should join with Texas and take the scoundrels to court.



There are already threads on this.


----------



## miketx

Skylar said:


> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot not allowing cheating democrats to ignore the Constitution
> 
> Biden cannot and will not cheat his way to the Presidency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: we don't like the results of the election so we'll claim fraud without evidence and if the courts won't give us our way, we'll try and get the Republican state legislatures to install our candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh there's evidence all right. Its on another thread on this board. Look it up.
> 
> Texas sues PA, GA, and three others. Texas has a very good case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas has a shit case that is little more than theater for dipshits.
> 
> First, Texas doesn't have standing for the election laws in other states. This alone ends any viable legal challenge. But wait, there's more!
> 
> Second, the States  in question have found no violations of their own election laws. The issues have been adjudicated. Killing the legal challenge again. But lets kick the dead horse, shall we?
> 
> Third, if this were genuinely a constitutional challenge to mail in ballots and not a political stunt, Texas would have filed suit against ALL states that used mail in ballots. Including, say, California. They didn't. They targeted only the swing States. Stripping the suit of even its internal logic.
> 
> Fourth, the Doctrine of Laches. If Texas genuinely felt that these changes would have invalidated Texas votes, they could have filed suit months and months ago. Instead, they waited to see results of the election. And only then filed suits based on those results. That's not how the law works. If the harm is in the process, you don't want to see if you like the results of the process before you sue.
> 
> Fifth, there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud that the suit's logic is predicated on.
> 
> Sixth, the remedy that Texas is seeking is extreme. Delaying the electoral vote itself? Disenfranchising tens of millions of voters? Its absolutely unprecedented. Extreme remedies require extreme evidence. _And Texas has none._
> 
> Seventh, waiting until the Safe Harbor day to file the suit demonstrates that Texas has no real interest in pursuing their suit. As they waited until the last possible moment to file, when their suit had the least possibility of being heard and the remedy offered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas *DOES *have standing in other states if their right to equal protection is effected by what
> Michigan and Georgia does, for instance. By changing their own election law improperly those
> five states disenfranchise every Trump voter in America!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. The rules that Texas is challenging are internal to each State. Texas doesn't get a say in how those rules are implemented outside of Texas. And the issues of raised by Texas are just rehashes of cases that have already been adjudicated in the State courts.
> 
> And rejected. There are no violations per the States themselves. And the rules for the election are internal to the State.
> 
> Its a closed loop. And Texas is outside the loop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly you are arguing an asinine point. There is no indication AT ALL that those others states
> took any interest in investigating how they were making a mockery of their own election laws.
> Why would they find fault with what they were doing? This is absolutely idiotic!
> It demonstrates what a shitty desperate thinker you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is not an investigatory court. Its an appeals court. If you're demanding investigations be redone to your satisfaction, you're confused on what the Supreme Court does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep on spewing the fear is overwhelming you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That one has gone ape shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you may be projecting a tad.
> 
> As I've said, this entire petition for writ is just theater for dipshits.
Click to expand...


----------



## Skylar

Billiejeens said:


> This case has nothing to do with fraud
> 
> Menton fraud in this thread -  you are an idiot.
> 
> Laws were made
> Laws were not followed
> 
> Catch on?



Oh, it does. Texas has 3 complaints. The third are 'irregularities' that call into question the 'integrity' of the ballots.


----------



## Thunk

edthecynic said:


> Texas has NO standing.



Yes they do!


----------



## Skylar

Thunk said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas has NO standing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do!
Click to expand...


The supreme court failing to grant their petition for writ says otherwise.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> Nope. The rules that Texas is challenging are internal to each State. Texas doesn't get a say in how those rules are implemented outside of Texas. And the issues of raised by Texas are just rehashes of cases that have already been adjudicated in the State courts.
> 
> And rejected. There are no violations per the States themselves. And the rules for the election are internal to the State.
> 
> Its a closed loop. And Texas is outside the loop.


You are hopelessly corrupt and stupid. Imagine a river running between Pennsylvania and Texas
and in Pennsylvania it is perfectly legal  dump highly toxic materials in the river but people in downstream Texas are getting sick and dying because of what happens in Pennsylvania. 

In a national election what happens in Penn. effects other states and people.
It is not a "closed loop". Other people throughout the nation are disenfranchised by what happens
in other states and everyone should be playing all under the same rules.

Have some third grader explain to you why cheating isn't fair. This concept seems way beyond you.


----------



## toobfreak

Skylar said:


> _Good luck._




Thanks.  Texas will have no problem showing these states have used unconstitutional means to count different votes differently in Biden's favor.


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not. There have been no illegal changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.
Click to expand...


Another one who was in too much of a rush to tell us the "facts" based on what she really, really wants to actually find out anything about the topic.

On the bright side, you don't sound any more laughably stupid than you normally do.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Hidden said:


> Your high horse puzzles me. We're only disenfranchising 73M, not "every other voter in the nation." The moral majority of 81M voters agrees with me.


If you accept crooked accounting and cheats. And it doesn't matter anyway. Votes obtained by fraud
should be discounted and expunged.


----------



## Skylar

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The rules that Texas is challenging are internal to each State. Texas doesn't get a say in how those rules are implemented outside of Texas. And the issues of raised by Texas are just rehashes of cases that have already been adjudicated in the State courts.
> 
> And rejected. There are no violations per the States themselves. And the rules for the election are internal to the State.
> 
> Its a closed loop. And Texas is outside the loop.
> 
> 
> 
> You are hopelessly corrupt and stupid. Imagine a river running between Pennsylvania and Texas
> and in Pennsylvania it is perfectly legal  dump highly toxic materials in the river but people in downstream Texas are getting sick and dying because of what happens in Pennsylvania.
> 
> In a national election what happens in Penn. effects other states and people.
> It is not a "closed loop". Other people throughout the nation are disenfranchised by what happens
> in other states and everyone should be playing all under the same rules.
> 
> Have some third grader explain to you why cheating isn't fair. This concept seems way beyond you.
Click to expand...


Or....I'm just familiar with the relevant legal principles.

Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal gibberish isn't corruption....as you have no idea what you're talking about.

Speaking of your pseudo-legal gibberish,  no election law in Pennsylvania 'disenfranchises' any voter in Texas. The Texas suit doesn't even allege as much.


----------



## keepitreal

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
> 
> So much for "state's rights."
Click to expand...

Oye vay...being that you are a NCP you really should refrain from 
engaging in these discussions until you learn how to code...
this has nothing to do with states rights, it has to do with Constitutional violations


----------



## Skylar

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Hidden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your high horse puzzles me. We're only disenfranchising 73M, not "every other voter in the nation." The moral majority of 81M voters agrees with me.
> 
> 
> 
> If you accept crooked accounting and cheats. And it doesn't matter anyway. Votes obtained by fraud
> should be discounted and expunged.
Click to expand...


What cheats? Remember, this has been investigated. And there's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> I think you may be projecting a tad.
> 
> As I've said, this entire petition for writ is just theater for dipshits.


I've already exposed what your opinion is worth. And it isn't much. Or anything, actually.


----------



## d0gbreath

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Hidden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your high horse puzzles me. We're only disenfranchising 73M, not "every other voter in the nation." The moral majority of 81M voters agrees with me.
> 
> 
> 
> If you accept crooked accounting and cheats. And it doesn't matter anyway. Votes obtained by fraud
> should be discounted and expunged.
Click to expand...

Find some and let's get rid of them pronto.


----------



## Mac-7

Skylar said:


> The supreme court failing to grant their petition for writ says otherwise.


That has not happened yet but it is a possibility

The high court is hidebound and even the most conservative black robes may shrink from the most historic issue in living memory


----------



## Flash

Rumors are that Florida and other states will join the lawsuit.


----------



## BlindBoo

DukeU said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> While Michigan voters expanded mail ballot options to all voters by referendum in 2018, the state legislature did not make corresponding upstream and downstream policy changes to the election ecosystem that would facilitate a quicker, more efficient count. The Bipartisan Policy Center’s Task Force on Elections made several recommendations in January 2020 that align, in part, with those adopted in Michigan on September 24.
> 
> The bill package offers enhanced security for mail ballots, more processing time, correction of common voter errors, and better access for overseas military personnel and their spouses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Michigan Judge Extends Mailed Ballot Receipt Deadline In ...*
Click to expand...


Even if they were counted and they all went to Grumpybear it wouldn't have made a difference.

"Michigan experienced a jump in the number of absentee ballots rejected because of a voter's death from the 1,782 absentee ballots turned away due to deaths in the November 2016 election, but a record 3.3 million residents voted by absentee ballot this year.

*In addition, 3,328 ballots, or 22%, of the rejected ballots in the Nov. 3 election were turned away because they arrived after polls closed at 8 p.m. on Nov. 3*. It was a huge improvement from the Aug. 4 primary election, when about 60% or more than 6,400 of the 10,600 rejected absentee ballots were turned in too late."









						Benson: 15,302 absentee ballots were rejected
					

Michigan election clerks weeded out 15,302 absentee ballots in the Nov. 3 presidential election because they failed to meet legal qualifications



					www.detroitnews.com


----------



## Skylar

Mac-7 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court failing to grant their petition for writ says otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> That has not happened yet but it is a possibility
> 
> The high court is hidebound and even the most conservative black robes may shrink from the most historic issue in living memory
Click to expand...


Talk to me if it ever happens. Almost all petitions for writ are denied. 

And this particular petition has legal holes you could drive a truck through. Making its denial especially likely.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> hat cheats? Remember, this has been investigated. And there's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.


As said before just the Dominion Vote Changing machine alone smashes that lie to pieces.
And investigations conducted by the vote thieves themselves are worthless.

Georgia and Michigan, for instance, can investigate themselves dozens of times and still pronounce 
themselves clean. That doesn't make it so.


----------



## Skylar

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you may be projecting a tad.
> 
> As I've said, this entire petition for writ is just theater for dipshits.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already exposed what your opinion is worth. And it isn't much. Or anything, actually.
Click to expand...


And by 'exposed', you mean you merely declared? You made similar 'declarations' about election laws being violated.

How'd that work out for you?


----------



## Mac-7

Skylar said:


> And this  particular petition has legal holes you could drive a truck through.


Name one


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> And by 'exposed', you mean you merely declared? You made similar 'declarations' about election laws being violated.
> 
> How'd that work out for you?


Show me what I said and I'll let you know. You are a pathetic morals free loser trying to hang onto a 
corrupt dream . Fuck you.


----------



## Skylar

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> hat cheats? Remember, this has been investigated. And there's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> 
> 
> As said before just the Dominion Vote Changing machine alone smashes that lie to pieces.
Click to expand...


Except of course, it doesn't.

First,  there's nothing corroborating the claim that Dominion voting machines changed votes. Its a tweet backed by nothing that you've clung to....for no particular reason.

Second, the *hand counts of the physical ballots matched the electronic tallies with more than 99% accuracy.* If the Dominion Voting machines were changing votes to Biden by '26%' as you tweet claimed, the counts would be wildly different.

They weren't. The physical tallies and the electronic tallies were virtually identical.

Just obliterating your silly tweet based conspiracy.

So I ask again, what cheats?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
Click to expand...


"So I interpreted what you said as what I wanted to hear, because I refuse to hear anything else."

And the Supreme Court overruling Pennsylvania on compliance with the US Constitution to prevent millions of people in other states from being disenfranchised by the Democrats' ignoring of Constitutional law . . . pretty likely.  They've done it before.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

And I repeat counting Biden votes at a higher rate than Trump  votes. 
It's called ballot weighting.


----------



## Dr Grump

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by 'exposed', you mean you merely declared? You made similar 'declarations' about election laws being violated.
> 
> How'd that work out for you?
> 
> 
> 
> Show me what I said and I'll let you know. You are a pathetic morals free loser trying to hang onto a
> corrupt dream . Fuck you.
Click to expand...

You are such a fucking loser. You really are.
Trump is toast.
Now, to more important things. How long is Trump going to prison for? And he is going to prison as sure as he won in 2016 and Biden kicked his Orange wobbly arse in 2020.


----------



## Skylar

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So I interpreted what you said as what I wanted to hear, because I refuse to hear anything else."
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling Pennsylvania on compliance with the US Constitution to prevent millions of people in other states from being disenfranchised by the Democrats' ignoring of Constitutional law . . . pretty likely.  They've done it before.
Click to expand...



Or.....the issues rehashed in the Texas petition for writ have already been adjudicated at the State level and rejected. 

_Good luck!_


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Dr Grump said:


> You are such a fucking loser. You really are.
> Trump is toast.
> Now, to more important things. How long is Trump going to prison for. And he is going to prison as sure as he won in 2016 and Biden kicked his Orange wobbly arse in 2020.


I see there is still one turd in the bowl spinning around on his way to oblivion. 
You have nothing of value to say.


----------



## Skylar

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> And I repeat counting Biden votes at a higher rate than Trump  votes.
> It's called ballot weighting.



And again, your tweet doesn't say a thing about 'weighing'. It says that the dominion machines changed votes from Trump to Biden.

_Backed by nothing. _So your claims are factually baseless.

Worse, we have a hand recount of the physical ballots that matched the electronic tallies with more than 99% accuracy. If the dominion machines changed 26% of the votes from Trump to Biden.....there would have been a wild disparity between the physical ballots and the electronic tallies.

There weren't. The counts were virtually identical. 

Your baseless conspiracy has been debunked yet again.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not. There have been no illegal changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US constitution says State legislatures set the rules for Presidential elector selection, and thus the elections. State judges can't override that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that the state judges 'overruled' the State Legislatures? Not even the Texas suit does that.
Click to expand...


Actually, the Texas suit does say that, but you wouldn't know, since you've been pulling ASSumptions about what their suit out of your anus from the start.

I'm going to do you a favor and actually show you how ignorant you're being . . . and do everyone else a favor by showing them it's actually stupidity, since you won't read this any more than you read the OP article.

The US Constitution - you may have heard of it; that's the document your thought masters keep telling you is toilet paper - states very clearly that election law must be passed by the state legislators.  It cannot be decided or changed by anyone else.  Not the governor, not the Secretary of State, not the election boards, and not the state Supreme Court.

States such as Pennsylvania had their election laws changed by people who weren't the state legislature.

Here is the contention of the state of Texas:

_This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution._ 

_Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards. For presidential elections, each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution,” Paxton said in a statement. “The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution._

Which answers the questions of both standing and harm.

And now you know that every "point" you've made based on what you ASSumed was happening was so much flatulence.

You're welcome.


----------



## BULLDOG

This political stunt is nothing more than a desperate effort from right wing politicians to show Trump they still support him. Nobody expects it to have any effect on anything.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AZrailwhale said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and federal judges have said they have provided no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The proof is very simple, the affected states changed election procedures in violation of their own laws by executive fiat.  That isn't even open to argument, the proof is in the record.
Click to expand...


The big questions will be whether or not the Supreme Court recognizes the standing of other states to bring suit on this question, and whether or not they'll consider the requested remedy to be appropriate.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> 
> 
> Gee..you are so "sharp" I'm surprised you can't figure this out...*not really.*
> 
> Texas won't be ruling on the election violations of other states. The Supreme Court will.
> If five states are allowed to pervert election law then the entire body of laws that rule and govern our
> national elections are nuked and Texas has a right to protect the laws that govern them as well as every other state in the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who determines if election laws of a given state were correctly implemented? The respective state courts.
> 
> Texas has no say in any of it.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but no.  The USSC has every right to decide whether or not actions of a state government violate the US Constitution.  All these pages of mouth flatulence out of you, and you still haven't figured out that this is a Constitutional question.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> And the Texas AG's assessments of the court rulings of OTHER STATES is legally meaningless. As Texas has neither standing nor authority over the election laws of any state but itself.
> 
> This is theater for dipshits, Marty.
Click to expand...


"This is about the state laws.  JUST THE STATE LAWS!!!!  Because I want it to be!!!!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

toobfreak said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Good luck._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  Texas will have no problem showing these states have used unconstitutional means to count different votes differently in Biden's favor.
Click to expand...


That's assuming the Supreme Court finds that Texas has standing to bring this suit.  I don't think it's ever been done before in this way.


----------



## Skylar

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not. There have been no illegal changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US constitution says State legislatures set the rules for Presidential elector selection, and thus the elections. State judges can't override that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that the state judges 'overruled' the State Legislatures? Not even the Texas suit does that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the Texas suit does say that, but you wouldn't know, since you've been pulling ASSumptions about what their suit out of your anus from the start.
> 
> I'm going to do you a favor and actually show you how ignorant you're being . . . and do everyone else a favor by showing them it's actually stupidity, since you won't read this any more than you read the OP article.
> 
> The US Constitution - you may have heard of it; that's the document your thought masters keep telling you is toilet paper - states very clearly that election law must be passed by the state legislators.  It cannot be decided or changed by anyone else.  Not the governor, not the Secretary of State, not the election boards, and not the state Supreme Court.
> 
> States such as Pennsylvania had their election laws changed by people who weren't the state legislature.
> 
> Here is the contention of the state of Texas:
> 
> _This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.
> 
> Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards. For presidential elections, each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution,” Paxton said in a statement. “The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution._
> 
> Which answers the questions of both standing and harm.
> 
> And now you know that every "point" you've made based on what you ASSumed was happening was so much flatulence.
> 
> You're welcome.
Click to expand...


Again, the rules of election are particular to each State. And the States in question have never found that such a violation of its laws occured.

So who, pray tell, has come to the legal finding that the state laws were violated?

Not the State legislatures. Not the State courts. Not the Supreme Court. 

Even Texas' petition for writ is little more than an accusation. Not a legal finding.

So what violations are being referred to?


----------



## iceberg

bendog said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, most conservatives are truly this ignorant of our judicial system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas can't rule on what another state is doing in an election.
Click to expand...

simply amazing to me how many people are suddenly lawyers.


----------



## Skylar

Cecilie1200 said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Good luck._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  Texas will have no problem showing these states have used unconstitutional means to count different votes differently in Biden's favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's assuming the Supreme Court finds that Texas has standing to bring this suit.  I don't think it's ever been done before in this way.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court has made no such finding. No writ has been granted.

A lot of your 'argument' is based on accusations and assumptions that no State, Court or Legislature have found. Including the Supreme Court.


----------



## Skylar

iceberg said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, most conservatives are truly this ignorant of our judicial system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas can't rule on what another state is doing in an election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply amazing to me how many people are suddenly lawyers.
Click to expand...


We can quote actual lawyers saying the exact same thing. You'd ignore them too.


----------



## Blaine Sweeter

Rambunctious said:


> Blaine Sweeter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will go directly to the supreme court....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath.
> Billy Barr has already ruled on it.
> SCOTUS will defer to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit....Barr is not a judge...you are going to be very angry in a week or so....
Click to expand...


No, he's the Attorney General and head of the Department of JUSTICE, asshole.
You're going to be really butthurt but these things take longer than a week, so stock up on cream  now.


----------



## bripat9643

Coyote said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
Click to expand...

Those lower Dim Kangaroo courts were never going to rule in Trump's favor, and the process of escalating to a higher court takes too long.

There's nothing legitimate about this swindle election.  Nothing.

The judge was out of order asking if it was fraud since that case didn't claim fraud.

All you have done is spew all the usual Dim talking points that have already been debunked


----------



## BlindBoo

Cecilie1200 said:


> The US Constitution - you may have heard of it; that's the document your thought masters keep telling you is toilet paper - states very clearly that election law must be passed by the state legislators. It cannot be decided or changed by anyone else. Not the governor, not the Secretary of State, not the election boards, and not the state Supreme Court.



"The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. *Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures. 

The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials. A few states have chosen to transfer power to draw congressional district lines from their respective legislatures to non-partisan or bipartisan “independent redistricting commissions.”* These states believe that such commissions can make the electoral process more fair by preventing voters from being divided into congressional districts in ways that unduly protect existing officeholders (“gerrymandering”). 

As this summary shows, congressional elections are conducted under a complicated mix of state and federal laws, reflecting the Elections Clause’s division of authority between state legislatures and Congress.






						Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
					

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars



					constitutioncenter.org


----------



## Blaine Sweeter

Thunk said:


> Blaine Sweeter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! Breitbart is so full of right-tard shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor poor filth melting down again
> 
> Watch the presidency slipping thru your fingers
> 
> View attachment 426659
Click to expand...


Memes and emojis are for losers, loser.


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those lower Dim Kangaroo courts were never going to rule in Trump's favor, and the process of escalating to a higher court takes too long.
> 
> There's nothing legitimate about this swindle election.  Nothing.
> 
> The judge was out of order asking if it was fraud since that case didn't claim fraud.
> 
> All you have done is spew all the usual Dim talking points that have already been debunked
Click to expand...


Dude, when the judges are republicans, you ignore them. When they're Trump appointees, you ignore them.

So don't pretend that the political party of the judge matters to you in the slightest. Your sole basis of 'credibility' is that a judge say what you want to believe.

And what you want to believe is pseudo-legal nonsense. Which is why you keep ignoring ruling after ruling.


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
Click to expand...

There's tons of it, you fucking moron.  You never see it because you only watch fake news.


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's tons of it, you fucking moron.  You never see it because you only watch fake news.
Click to expand...


Then why, pray tell, has Trump's legal team refused to present such evidence in court......or even alleged that any fraud occured in any of their legal arguments?

There's a reason why the horseshit you're being fed from press conferences next to adult bookstores......and what Trump's attorneys are actually arguing in court have nothing to do with each other.


----------



## Leo123

Coyote said:


> States make their own rukes and they have been upheld.


Can't have too many 'rukes'  OK I know it was a typo, just couldn't resist.


----------



## Rogue AI

busybee01 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't just pass things. There has to be constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are. Find the thread and read it. Its on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues.
Click to expand...

Beyond equal protection and the fact state election laws were violated?


----------



## Skylar

Rogue AI said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't just pass things. There has to be constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are. Find the thread and read it. Its on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Beyond equal protection and the fact state election laws were violated?
Click to expand...


The States in question have not found that their state election laws were violated.

Nor has any of the relevant State Legislatures. Nor has the Supreme Court.

So what violation are you referring to?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Cecilie1200 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the nice thing about this suit is that the USSC doesn't have to spend the lengthy amount of time that would be necessary to look into claims of fraud.  All they have to look at is the clear record of the actions that were taken, and whether or not they violate the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous nonsense.


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't just pass things. There has to be constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are. Find the thread and read it. Its on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Beyond equal protection and the fact state election laws were violated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States in question have not found that their state election laws were violated.
> 
> Nor has any of the relevant State Legislatures. Nor has the Supreme Court.
> 
> So what violation are you referring to?
Click to expand...


They haven't had time, moron


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't just pass things. There has to be constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are. Find the thread and read it. Its on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Beyond equal protection and the fact state election laws were violated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States in question have not found that their state election laws were violated.
> 
> Nor has any of the relevant State Legislatures. Nor has the Supreme Court.
> 
> So what violation are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They haven't had time, moron
Click to expand...


Its been more than a month. They've had plenty of time.

You're being played again, Brit.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

This lawsuit is, if nothing else, a warning shot across the bow.

Texas will lead a Constitutional Convention...which could result in Independence.


----------



## Rogue AI

Skylar said:


> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't just pass things. There has to be constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are. Find the thread and read it. Its on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Beyond equal protection and the fact state election laws were violated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States in question have not found that their state election laws were violated.
> 
> Nor has any of the relevant State Legislatures. Nor has the Supreme Court.
> 
> So what violation are you referring to?
Click to expand...

State election laws are public record. I suggest you go read them. Then go look at changes made by election officials and the judiciary. This isn't rocket science. Setting of rules for elections belongs solely to the legislature. States have in fact challenged this. In PA one judge did rule it unconstitutional and it was punted over 'timeliness' not constitutionality. There is an open case in WI challenging the same thing. It was also a part of Powell's lawsuits. You don't know about because the liberal media ignored it.


----------



## WelfareQueen

BlindBoo said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, in every State only the Legislature can create rules of election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  They could decide how a state chooses it's presidential electors.  Not how the elections are run in the States.  Each states legislature's have bound it's electors to the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.  Only State Legislature's can create, amend, or nullify election laws in their State.  Governors, State Attorney Generals, and local election officials have no such legal authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Governor Whitmer didn't need to sign these bills?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michigan Makes Positive Election Law Changes | Bipartisan Policy Center
> 
> 
> The Michigan legislature recently passed two bipartisan election laws and sent them to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) for her signature. Election officials initiated these…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bipartisanpolicy.org
Click to expand...


Are you really that stupid?  Governors and Presidents can sign bills into Law.  They do not create, amend, or nullify Law.  Only the Legislature can do that.  Do try to keep up.  Jesus Dims are dim.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the nice thing about this suit is that the USSC doesn't have to spend the lengthy amount of time that would be necessary to look into claims of fraud.  All they have to look at is the clear record of the actions that were taken, and whether or not they violate the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ridiculous nonsense.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS:  Counsel, what is your reply?

Clayton "needs to go back to law school" Jones:  Relator's response is that this is Ridiculous Nonsense.  Thank Justices.


----------



## Skylar

Rogue AI said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't just pass things. There has to be constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are. Find the thread and read it. Its on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Beyond equal protection and the fact state election laws were violated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States in question have not found that their state election laws were violated.
> 
> Nor has any of the relevant State Legislatures. Nor has the Supreme Court.
> 
> So what violation are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> State election laws are public record. I suggest you go read them. Then go look at changes made by election officials and the judiciary. This isn't rocket science. Setting to rules for elections belongs solely to the legislature. States have in fact challenged this. In PA one judge did rule it unconstitutional and it was punted over 'timeliness' not constitutionality. There is an open case in WI challenging the same thing. It was also a part of Powell's lawsuits. You don't know about because the liberal media ignored it.
Click to expand...


I have. I'm asking you which court has determined that there was a violation of state election laws. And you were unable to provide any.

Not the State courts. Not the State Legislatures. Not the election officials. Not the Supreme Court.

*No one has found a violation. *So what violation are you referring to?


----------



## beautress

iceberg said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
> 
> So much for "state's rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> states trampled over our rights to change laws outside of process and checks and balances.
> 
> eat it.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you started this thread, Iceberg.

Sometimes I think those on the left aisle cannot put themselves in the shoes and moccasins of early America. It takes generations to appreciate what was given up and taken in the shadow of the American Revolutionary War. While colonists won freedom from paying high taxes and being disdained by Lord and Lady alike, they learned to accept every kindred and every tribe on this terrestial ball in accordance with our founders agreed-to Constitution as lessons learned amended it for all men and women who came, hanging onto a dream. ♡♡♡♡♡


----------



## WelfareQueen

BlindBoo said:


> DukeU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> While Michigan voters expanded mail ballot options to all voters by referendum in 2018, the state legislature did not make corresponding upstream and downstream policy changes to the election ecosystem that would facilitate a quicker, more efficient count. The Bipartisan Policy Center’s Task Force on Elections made several recommendations in January 2020 that align, in part, with those adopted in Michigan on September 24.
> 
> The bill package offers enhanced security for mail ballots, more processing time, correction of common voter errors, and better access for overseas military personnel and their spouses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Michigan Judge Extends Mailed Ballot Receipt Deadline In ...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if they were counted and they all went to Grumpybear it wouldn't have made a difference.
> 
> "Michigan experienced a jump in the number of absentee ballots rejected because of a voter's death from the 1,782 absentee ballots turned away due to deaths in the November 2016 election, but a record 3.3 million residents voted by absentee ballot this year.
> 
> *In addition, 3,328 ballots, or 22%, of the rejected ballots in the Nov. 3 election were turned away because they arrived after polls closed at 8 p.m. on Nov. 3*. It was a huge improvement from the Aug. 4 primary election, when about 60% or more than 6,400 of the 10,600 rejected absentee ballots were turned in too late."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benson: 15,302 absentee ballots were rejected
> 
> 
> Michigan election clerks weeded out 15,302 absentee ballots in the Nov. 3 presidential election because they failed to meet legal qualifications
> 
> 
> 
> www.detroitnews.com
Click to expand...


The issue is equal protection under the law and preventing this bullshit from ever happening again.


----------



## colfax_m

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> This lawsuit is, if nothing else, a warning shot across the bow.
> 
> Texas will lead a Constitutional Convention...which could result in Independence.


It’s a desperate attempt to garner goodwill from the fringe right for an AG who is currently under FBI investigation.

Maybe fishing for a pardon, who knows?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


And if a state law violates the US Constitution?  Oh, I forgot, you couldn't wait to start telling us what you "thought" the issues were long enough to find out what they actually were.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Claudette said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the nice thing about this suit is that the USSC doesn't have to spend the lengthy amount of time that would be necessary to look into claims of fraud.  All they have to look at is the clear record of the actions that were taken, and whether or not they violate the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which they did. Wonder what their findings will be??
Click to expand...


Right now, I'm just waiting to see if they'll choose to hear the case.


----------



## BlindBoo

WelfareQueen said:


> Are you really that stupid? Governors and Presidents can sign bills into Law. They do not create, amend, or nullify Law. Only the Legislature can do that.



"The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. *Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures.

The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials. A few states have chosen to transfer power to draw congressional district lines from their respective legislatures to non-partisan or bipartisan “independent redistricting commissions.”* These states believe that such commissions can make the electoral process more fair by preventing voters from being divided into congressional districts in ways that unduly protect existing officeholders (“gerrymandering”).

As this summary shows, congressional elections are conducted under a complicated mix of state and federal laws, reflecting the Elections Clause’s division of authority between state legislatures and Congress. 






						Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
					

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars



					constitutioncenter.org


----------



## Cecilie1200

Claudette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are very, very stupid but you will come to see there is nothing you can do to stop this matter,
> It's something only the SC can rule on. One state is suing five other states over matters of
> Constitutional law (electors clause).
> 
> I love watching worms like you squirm around. Keep it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. The Supreme Court can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can always hope but I doubt the SC will overlook unconstitutional behavior during an election.
Click to expand...


They shouldn't, but what should happen and what does happen aren't always the same thing.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are very, very stupid but you will come to see there is nothing you can do to stop this matter,
> It's something only the SC can rule on. One state is suing five other states over matters of
> Constitutional law (electors clause).
> 
> I love watching worms like you squirm around. Keep it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. The Supreme Court can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can always hope but I doubt the SC will overlook unconstitutional behavior during an election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What unconstitutional behavior?
Click to expand...


7 pages of you holding forth on what you wanted to think the issues were, and you STILL haven't figured out what they actually are.

Just because you have a right to be pig-stupid doesn't mean you should exercise that right quite so much.


----------



## Skylar

WelfareQueen said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DukeU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> While Michigan voters expanded mail ballot options to all voters by referendum in 2018, the state legislature did not make corresponding upstream and downstream policy changes to the election ecosystem that would facilitate a quicker, more efficient count. The Bipartisan Policy Center’s Task Force on Elections made several recommendations in January 2020 that align, in part, with those adopted in Michigan on September 24.
> 
> The bill package offers enhanced security for mail ballots, more processing time, correction of common voter errors, and better access for overseas military personnel and their spouses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Michigan Judge Extends Mailed Ballot Receipt Deadline In ...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if they were counted and they all went to Grumpybear it wouldn't have made a difference.
> 
> "Michigan experienced a jump in the number of absentee ballots rejected because of a voter's death from the 1,782 absentee ballots turned away due to deaths in the November 2016 election, but a record 3.3 million residents voted by absentee ballot this year.
> 
> *In addition, 3,328 ballots, or 22%, of the rejected ballots in the Nov. 3 election were turned away because they arrived after polls closed at 8 p.m. on Nov. 3*. It was a huge improvement from the Aug. 4 primary election, when about 60% or more than 6,400 of the 10,600 rejected absentee ballots were turned in too late."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benson: 15,302 absentee ballots were rejected
> 
> 
> Michigan election clerks weeded out 15,302 absentee ballots in the Nov. 3 presidential election because they failed to meet legal qualifications
> 
> 
> 
> www.detroitnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue is equal protection under the law and preventing this bullshit from ever happening again.
Click to expand...




Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if a state law violates the US Constitution?  Oh, I forgot, you couldn't wait to start telling us what you "thought" the issues were long enough to find out what they actually were.
Click to expand...


What state law is supposedly violating the constitution?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
Click to expand...


I just heard, "I have decided THIS is what is required for standing, therefore it is so!!!"


----------



## Skylar

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are very, very stupid but you will come to see there is nothing you can do to stop this matter,
> It's something only the SC can rule on. One state is suing five other states over matters of
> Constitutional law (electors clause).
> 
> I love watching worms like you squirm around. Keep it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. The Supreme Court can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can always hope but I doubt the SC will overlook unconstitutional behavior during an election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What unconstitutional behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 7 pages of you holding forth on what you wanted to think the issues were, and you STILL haven't figured out what they actually are.
> 
> Just because you have a right to be pig-stupid doesn't mean you should exercise that right quite so much.
Click to expand...


Oh, I've seen the accusations. What I have yet to see is a single legal finding of any violation of any state election law.

And of course, a plaintiff with standing.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DukeU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> While Michigan voters expanded mail ballot options to all voters by referendum in 2018, the state legislature did not make corresponding upstream and downstream policy changes to the election ecosystem that would facilitate a quicker, more efficient count. The Bipartisan Policy Center’s Task Force on Elections made several recommendations in January 2020 that align, in part, with those adopted in Michigan on September 24.
> 
> The bill package offers enhanced security for mail ballots, more processing time, correction of common voter errors, and better access for overseas military personnel and their spouses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Michigan Judge Extends Mailed Ballot Receipt Deadline In ...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if they were counted and they all went to Grumpybear it wouldn't have made a difference.
> 
> "Michigan experienced a jump in the number of absentee ballots rejected because of a voter's death from the 1,782 absentee ballots turned away due to deaths in the November 2016 election, but a record 3.3 million residents voted by absentee ballot this year.
> 
> *In addition, 3,328 ballots, or 22%, of the rejected ballots in the Nov. 3 election were turned away because they arrived after polls closed at 8 p.m. on Nov. 3*. It was a huge improvement from the Aug. 4 primary election, when about 60% or more than 6,400 of the 10,600 rejected absentee ballots were turned in too late."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benson: 15,302 absentee ballots were rejected
> 
> 
> Michigan election clerks weeded out 15,302 absentee ballots in the Nov. 3 presidential election because they failed to meet legal qualifications
> 
> 
> 
> www.detroitnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue is equal protection under the law and preventing this bullshit from ever happening again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if a state law violates the US Constitution?  Oh, I forgot, you couldn't wait to start telling us what you "thought" the issues were long enough to find out what they actually were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What state law is supposedly violating the constitution?
Click to expand...


You really think I'm going to repeat what I've been saying to you for the last seven pages - and what was in the OP article you didn't bother to read before pronouncing on it - simply because you've decided to just now shut your flapping jaw and ask about the thread topic as though it just magically appeared?

Fuck you.  Scroll your ass back and read what you should have read before you started yammering.


----------



## Skylar

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just heard, "I have decided THIS is what is required for standing, therefore it is so!!!"
Click to expand...


The you might want to listen to the resounding lack of a granting of Texas' petition by the Supreme Court.

As all we're doing is explaining why.


----------



## WelfareQueen

BlindBoo said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid? Governors and Presidents can sign bills into Law. They do not create, amend, or nullify Law. Only the Legislature can do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. *Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures.
> 
> The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials. A few states have chosen to transfer power to draw congressional district lines from their respective legislatures to non-partisan or bipartisan “independent redistricting commissions.”* These states believe that such commissions can make the electoral process more fair by preventing voters from being divided into congressional districts in ways that unduly protect existing officeholders (“gerrymandering”).
> 
> As this summary shows, congressional elections are conducted under a complicated mix of state and federal laws, reflecting the Elections Clause’s division of authority between state legislatures and Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
> 
> 
> Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars
> 
> 
> 
> constitutioncenter.org
Click to expand...



The Courts already ruled the State Attorney General in Pennsylvania ( A Dim of course) acted improperly and unconstitutionally by changing election Law without consent of the Legislature.  If powers are conferred it will have to be in accordance with the Law.  If not, voters Rights have been violated.


----------



## Rogue AI

Skylar said:


> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't just pass things. There has to be constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are. Find the thread and read it. Its on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Beyond equal protection and the fact state election laws were violated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States in question have not found that their state election laws were violated.
> 
> Nor has any of the relevant State Legislatures. Nor has the Supreme Court.
> 
> So what violation are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> State election laws are public record. I suggest you go read them. Then go look at changes made by election officials and the judiciary. This isn't rocket science. Setting to rules for elections belongs solely to the legislature. States have in fact challenged this. In PA one judge did rule it unconstitutional and it was punted over 'timeliness' not constitutionality. There is an open case in WI challenging the same thing. It was also a part of Powell's lawsuits. You don't know about because the liberal media ignored it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have. I'm asking you which court has determined that there was a violation of state election laws. And you were unable to provide any.
> 
> Not the State courts. Not the State Legislatures. Not the election officials. Not the Supreme Court.
> 
> *No one has found a violation. *So what violation are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Sadly you have no clue what you are talking about.


----------



## Skylar

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DukeU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> While Michigan voters expanded mail ballot options to all voters by referendum in 2018, the state legislature did not make corresponding upstream and downstream policy changes to the election ecosystem that would facilitate a quicker, more efficient count. The Bipartisan Policy Center’s Task Force on Elections made several recommendations in January 2020 that align, in part, with those adopted in Michigan on September 24.
> 
> The bill package offers enhanced security for mail ballots, more processing time, correction of common voter errors, and better access for overseas military personnel and their spouses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Michigan Judge Extends Mailed Ballot Receipt Deadline In ...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if they were counted and they all went to Grumpybear it wouldn't have made a difference.
> 
> "Michigan experienced a jump in the number of absentee ballots rejected because of a voter's death from the 1,782 absentee ballots turned away due to deaths in the November 2016 election, but a record 3.3 million residents voted by absentee ballot this year.
> 
> *In addition, 3,328 ballots, or 22%, of the rejected ballots in the Nov. 3 election were turned away because they arrived after polls closed at 8 p.m. on Nov. 3*. It was a huge improvement from the Aug. 4 primary election, when about 60% or more than 6,400 of the 10,600 rejected absentee ballots were turned in too late."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benson: 15,302 absentee ballots were rejected
> 
> 
> Michigan election clerks weeded out 15,302 absentee ballots in the Nov. 3 presidential election because they failed to meet legal qualifications
> 
> 
> 
> www.detroitnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue is equal protection under the law and preventing this bullshit from ever happening again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if a state law violates the US Constitution?  Oh, I forgot, you couldn't wait to start telling us what you "thought" the issues were long enough to find out what they actually were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What state law is supposedly violating the constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really think I'm going to repeat what I've been saying to you for the last seven pages - and what was in the OP article you didn't bother to read before pronouncing on it - simply because you've decided to just now shut your flapping jaw and ask about the thread topic as though it just magically appeared?
> 
> Fuck you.  Scroll your ass back and read what you should have read before you started yammering.
Click to expand...


Again, there's been no finding of any such violation. Not the relevant State courts, not by any state legislature, not by the Supreme Court.

So where is the 'violation'? 

You're stuck on square one. Well, maybe square two. As you still don't have a plaintiff with standing.


----------



## Skylar

Rogue AI said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't just pass things. There has to be constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are. Find the thread and read it. Its on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Beyond equal protection and the fact state election laws were violated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States in question have not found that their state election laws were violated.
> 
> Nor has any of the relevant State Legislatures. Nor has the Supreme Court.
> 
> So what violation are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> State election laws are public record. I suggest you go read them. Then go look at changes made by election officials and the judiciary. This isn't rocket science. Setting to rules for elections belongs solely to the legislature. States have in fact challenged this. In PA one judge did rule it unconstitutional and it was punted over 'timeliness' not constitutionality. There is an open case in WI challenging the same thing. It was also a part of Powell's lawsuits. You don't know about because the liberal media ignored it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have. I'm asking you which court has determined that there was a violation of state election laws. And you were unable to provide any.
> 
> Not the State courts. Not the State Legislatures. Not the election officials. Not the Supreme Court.
> 
> *No one has found a violation. *So what violation are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly you have no clue what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


Then explain it to us. Show us the legal finding of Pennsylvania violating its own election laws in the manner that the Texas complaint alleges.

Don't tell us. Show us.


----------



## toobfreak

Cecilie1200 said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Good luck._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  Texas will have no problem showing these states have used unconstitutional means to count different votes differently in Biden's favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's assuming the Supreme Court finds that Texas has standing to bring this suit.  I don't think it's ever been done before in this way.
Click to expand...



They do, they will and it has.


----------



## progressive hunter

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.
> 
> You are just flailing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.
Click to expand...










						BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
					

The Supreme Court has officially put the Texas election case suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, filed last night, on the docket: BREAKING – U.S. Supreme Court will hear Texa…




					therightscoop.com


----------



## liarintheWH

Blaine Sweeter said:


> Thunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blaine Sweeter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! Breitbart is so full of right-tard shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor poor filth melting down again
> 
> Watch the presidency slipping thru your fingers
> 
> View attachment 426659
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Memes and emojis are for losers, loser.
Click to expand...


Except when you do it....



Blaine Sweeter said:


> LiberalsLIE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blaine Sweeter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit.  That's not the Dem platform
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are full of shit, you and your faggot ass avatar.
> 
> Democrats are the party of infanticide, socialism, government control, smashing Free Speech rights, giving free stuff to illegal aliens, and now they are the party of mobs in the streets burning and destroying cities. See the burning cities and torn down statues, and you see the democrat party world. Mobs.
> 
> Republicans are the party of Traditional Values, Liberty and freedom. *Donald Trump gave us the lowest unemployment rates since John F Kennedy until the virus hit,* and now Democrats are trying to keep the virus going because they are so evil they are happy to destroy the economy simply to defeat Trump. That’s right. Masks and continued shutdowns are a joke, based totally on fear. There is a 0.04 death rate for Corona. People have more chance of dying from the Flu.
> 
> A totalitarian socialist state of mobs is what the Democrats offer, and liberty and freedom and jobs-not-mobs is what Trump offers.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Faggot.


----------



## BlindBoo

WelfareQueen said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid? Governors and Presidents can sign bills into Law. They do not create, amend, or nullify Law. Only the Legislature can do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. *Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures.
> 
> The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials. A few states have chosen to transfer power to draw congressional district lines from their respective legislatures to non-partisan or bipartisan “independent redistricting commissions.”* These states believe that such commissions can make the electoral process more fair by preventing voters from being divided into congressional districts in ways that unduly protect existing officeholders (“gerrymandering”).
> 
> As this summary shows, congressional elections are conducted under a complicated mix of state and federal laws, reflecting the Elections Clause’s division of authority between state legislatures and Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
> 
> 
> Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars
> 
> 
> 
> constitutioncenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts already ruled the State Attorney General in Pennsylvania ( A Dim of course) acted improperly and unconstitutionally by changing election Law without consent of the Legislature.  If powers are conferred it will have to be in accordance with the Law.  If not, voters Rights have been violated.
Click to expand...


So what?  The late mail in ballots were thrown out and not counted.


----------



## Skylar

progressive hunter said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.
> 
> You are just flailing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has officially put the Texas election case suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, filed last night, on the docket: BREAKING – U.S. Supreme Court will hear Texa…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> therightscoop.com
Click to expand...


We'll see what happens.


----------



## colfax_m

progressive hunter said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.
> 
> You are just flailing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has officially put the Texas election case suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, filed last night, on the docket: BREAKING – U.S. Supreme Court will hear Texa…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> therightscoop.com
Click to expand...

Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws. And lack standing in any dispute of how those laws are applied.
Click to expand...


"There have been no violations of the type I have decided are the issue, because I don't want to deal with the ACTUAL issue that's the topic!!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would do better if you read it first,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.
> 
> just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't do what?
> 
> The Supreme Court hasn't granted a writ. We're explaining why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and what are the credentials of "we" that we should consider their opinion???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We would be anyone in this thread who is explaining why this suit lacks standing or is otherwise legally deficient.
Click to expand...


Translated:  Me and all the other leftist dumbasses who think the law is whatever they want to hear at the moment to get their way.


----------



## Skylar

colfax_m said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.
> 
> You are just flailing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has officially put the Texas election case suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, filed last night, on the docket: BREAKING – U.S. Supreme Court will hear Texa…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> therightscoop.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.
Click to expand...


If its docketed, they're most likely having a hearing. It doesn't mean that cert has been granted. But it means that they're probably going to listen to arguments.

And the case being docketed for today strongly suggests that the courts recognize the significance of the Safe Harbor date. As same day turn around is extraordinarily rare.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> And of course, a plaintiff with standing.


That would be Texas in a case involving the Supreme Court.


----------



## Rambunctious

Blaine Sweeter said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blaine Sweeter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will go directly to the supreme court....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath.
> Billy Barr has already ruled on it.
> SCOTUS will defer to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit....Barr is not a judge...you are going to be very angry in a week or so....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he's the Attorney General and head of the Department of JUSTICE, asshole.
> You're going to be really butthurt but these things take longer than a week, so stock up on cream  now.
Click to expand...

He isn't a judge...he doesn't sit on any bench...ASSHOLE.....this steal is unraveling as we speak....


----------



## Skylar

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of course, a plaintiff with standing.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be Texas in a case involving the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...


We'll see if the court recognizes Texas as having standing. The fact that it wasn't summarily denied suggests that there are at least one justice who has questions about that issue.


----------



## progressive hunter

colfax_m said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.
> 
> You are just flailing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has officially put the Texas election case suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, filed last night, on the docket: BREAKING – U.S. Supreme Court will hear Texa…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> therightscoop.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.
Click to expand...

thanks for your highly intellectual evaluation of the case,,,


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
Click to expand...


"The rules only exist on the state level, because I said so!!!!  They can be anything anyone in the state government wants, because I said so!!!  How DARE you insist there are other rules they have to follow, when I don't want it to be true?!"

Explained repeatedly, and ignored repeatedly to just be asked again.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would do better if you read it first,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.
> 
> just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't do what?
> 
> The Supreme Court hasn't granted a writ. We're explaining why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and what are the credentials of "we" that we should consider their opinion???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We would be anyone in this thread who is explaining why this suit lacks standing or is otherwise legally deficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so youre just another faceless voice on the interrnet,,, got it,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm just explaining WHY there is no writ granted.
> 
> The fact is, there's no writ granted.
Click to expand...


No, you're explaining why you WANT no writ to be granted.

The fact is, it hadn't been granted because the suit was just filed yesterday.


----------



## progressive hunter

Skylar said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.
> 
> You are just flailing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has officially put the Texas election case suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, filed last night, on the docket: BREAKING – U.S. Supreme Court will hear Texa…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> therightscoop.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its docketed, they're most likely having a hearing. It doesn't mean that cert has been granted. But it means that they're probably going to listen to arguments.
> 
> And the case being docketed for today strongly suggests that the courts recognize the significance of the Safe Harbor date. As same day turn around is extraordinarily rare.
Click to expand...

are you saying what the great and mighty colfax was wrong???

by gosh youre right he was wrong,,,


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would do better if you read it first,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.
> 
> just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't do what?
> 
> The Supreme Court hasn't granted a writ. We're explaining why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and what are the credentials of "we" that we should consider their opinion???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We would be anyone in this thread who is explaining why this suit lacks standing or is otherwise legally deficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so youre just another faceless voice on the interrnet,,, got it,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm just explaining WHY there is no writ granted.
> 
> The fact is, there's no writ granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then why are you so scared???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of 'Theater for Dipshits' makes you think I'm scared?
> 
> I'm laughing at you poor, unfortunate souls.
Click to expand...


The fact that you keep desperately clinging to, "The Court hasn't agreed to hear it yet, so that HAS to mean they agree with me!!!"  That tells me you're scared.  Also the fact that you're determinedly trying to make this about issues it's not about at all, so that you can avoid having to address the ACTUAL issues in play.


----------



## Skylar

progressive hunter said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.
> 
> You are just flailing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has officially put the Texas election case suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, filed last night, on the docket: BREAKING – U.S. Supreme Court will hear Texa…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> therightscoop.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its docketed, they're most likely having a hearing. It doesn't mean that cert has been granted. But it means that they're probably going to listen to arguments.
> 
> And the case being docketed for today strongly suggests that the courts recognize the significance of the Safe Harbor date. As same day turn around is extraordinarily rare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you saying what the great and mighty colfax was wrong???
> 
> by gosh youre right he was wrong,,,
Click to expand...


I'm saying what I said: if its docketed, they probably have a hearing. And the fact that the hearing is today strongly suggests the court recognizes the significance of the safe harbor date.


----------



## Skylar

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would do better if you read it first,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.
> 
> just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't do what?
> 
> The Supreme Court hasn't granted a writ. We're explaining why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and what are the credentials of "we" that we should consider their opinion???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We would be anyone in this thread who is explaining why this suit lacks standing or is otherwise legally deficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so youre just another faceless voice on the interrnet,,, got it,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm just explaining WHY there is no writ granted.
> 
> The fact is, there's no writ granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then why are you so scared???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of 'Theater for Dipshits' makes you think I'm scared?
> 
> I'm laughing at you poor, unfortunate souls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you keep desperately clinging to, "The Court hasn't agreed to hear it yet, so that HAS to mean they agree with me!!!"  That tells me you're scared.  Also the fact that you're determinedly trying to make this about issues it's not about at all, so that you can avoid having to address the ACTUAL issues in play.
Click to expand...


Dude, if your best legal argument is your assessment of my _emotions,_ you're done.

I've laid out why the Texas case is pure, molten garbage in detail. The courts have not yet granted cert, nor recognized standing. There's a hearing.

We'll see what happens.


----------



## progressive hunter

Skylar said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.
> 
> You are just flailing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has officially put the Texas election case suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, filed last night, on the docket: BREAKING – U.S. Supreme Court will hear Texa…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> therightscoop.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its docketed, they're most likely having a hearing. It doesn't mean that cert has been granted. But it means that they're probably going to listen to arguments.
> 
> And the case being docketed for today strongly suggests that the courts recognize the significance of the Safe Harbor date. As same day turn around is extraordinarily rare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you saying what the great and mighty colfax was wrong???
> 
> by gosh youre right he was wrong,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying what I said: if its docketed, they probably have a hearing. And the fact that the hearing is today strongly suggests the court recognizes the significance of the safe harbor date.
Click to expand...

but he said  all it meant was the case was filed,, which is clearly wrong,, and he called us idiots,,,


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would do better if you read it first,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.
> 
> just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't do what?
> 
> The Supreme Court hasn't granted a writ. We're explaining why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and what are the credentials of "we" that we should consider their opinion???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We would be anyone in this thread who is explaining why this suit lacks standing or is otherwise legally deficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so youre just another faceless voice on the interrnet,,, got it,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm just explaining WHY there is no writ granted.
> 
> The fact is, there's no writ granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then why are you so scared???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of 'Theater for Dipshits' makes you think I'm scared?
> 
> I'm laughing at you poor, unfortunate souls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet what you say can't be done, is being done.
> 
> maybe...just maybe...
> 
> you are wrong.
> 
> THE HORROR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it hasn't. The writ hasn't been issued.  Do you know how requests for writs of certiorari actually work?
Click to expand...


Do you?  You seem to think that the Supreme Court can do it within five minutes of a case being filed, and if they don't, it means they don't want to hear it.


----------



## Skylar

progressive hunter said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.
> 
> You are just flailing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has officially put the Texas election case suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, filed last night, on the docket: BREAKING – U.S. Supreme Court will hear Texa…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> therightscoop.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its docketed, they're most likely having a hearing. It doesn't mean that cert has been granted. But it means that they're probably going to listen to arguments.
> 
> And the case being docketed for today strongly suggests that the courts recognize the significance of the Safe Harbor date. As same day turn around is extraordinarily rare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you saying what the great and mighty colfax was wrong???
> 
> by gosh youre right he was wrong,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying what I said: if its docketed, they probably have a hearing. And the fact that the hearing is today strongly suggests the court recognizes the significance of the safe harbor date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but he said  all it meant was the case was filed,, which is clearly wrong,, and he called us idiots,,,
Click to expand...


That's between you and him.

It being on the docket means there's most likely a hearing.


----------



## Billiejeens

bendog said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, most conservatives are truly this ignorant of our judicial system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas can't rule on what another state is doing in an election.
Click to expand...


Correct.


----------



## Skylar

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would do better if you read it first,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.
> 
> just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't do what?
> 
> The Supreme Court hasn't granted a writ. We're explaining why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and what are the credentials of "we" that we should consider their opinion???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We would be anyone in this thread who is explaining why this suit lacks standing or is otherwise legally deficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so youre just another faceless voice on the interrnet,,, got it,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm just explaining WHY there is no writ granted.
> 
> The fact is, there's no writ granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then why are you so scared???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of 'Theater for Dipshits' makes you think I'm scared?
> 
> I'm laughing at you poor, unfortunate souls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet what you say can't be done, is being done.
> 
> maybe...just maybe...
> 
> you are wrong.
> 
> THE HORROR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it hasn't. The writ hasn't been issued.  Do you know how requests for writs of certiorari actually work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you?  You seem to think that the Supreme Court can do it within five minutes of a case being filed, and if they don't, it means they don't want to hear it.
Click to expand...


The petition was filed yesterday. No writ has been granted. What we have is likely hearing. 

At least one justice has some questions. We'll see what happens.


----------



## progressive hunter

Skylar said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.
> 
> You are just flailing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has officially put the Texas election case suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, filed last night, on the docket: BREAKING – U.S. Supreme Court will hear Texa…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> therightscoop.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its docketed, they're most likely having a hearing. It doesn't mean that cert has been granted. But it means that they're probably going to listen to arguments.
> 
> And the case being docketed for today strongly suggests that the courts recognize the significance of the Safe Harbor date. As same day turn around is extraordinarily rare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you saying what the great and mighty colfax was wrong???
> 
> by gosh youre right he was wrong,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying what I said: if its docketed, they probably have a hearing. And the fact that the hearing is today strongly suggests the court recognizes the significance of the safe harbor date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but he said  all it meant was the case was filed,, which is clearly wrong,, and he called us idiots,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's between you and him.
> 
> It being on the docket means there's most likely a hearing.
Click to expand...

but he wont listen to me when hes wrong,, so thanks for showing him he was wrong,,,


----------



## Skylar

progressive hunter said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.
> 
> You are just flailing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has officially put the Texas election case suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, filed last night, on the docket: BREAKING – U.S. Supreme Court will hear Texa…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> therightscoop.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its docketed, they're most likely having a hearing. It doesn't mean that cert has been granted. But it means that they're probably going to listen to arguments.
> 
> And the case being docketed for today strongly suggests that the courts recognize the significance of the Safe Harbor date. As same day turn around is extraordinarily rare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you saying what the great and mighty colfax was wrong???
> 
> by gosh youre right he was wrong,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying what I said: if its docketed, they probably have a hearing. And the fact that the hearing is today strongly suggests the court recognizes the significance of the safe harbor date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but he said  all it meant was the case was filed,, which is clearly wrong,, and he called us idiots,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's between you and him.
> 
> It being on the docket means there's most likely a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but he wont listen to me when hes wrong,, so thanks for showing him he was wrong,,,
Click to expand...


What is, is. A placement on the docket is an indication of a likely hearing. 

We'll see what happens.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would do better if you read it first,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.
> 
> just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't do what?
> 
> The Supreme Court hasn't granted a writ. We're explaining why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and what are the credentials of "we" that we should consider their opinion???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We would be anyone in this thread who is explaining why this suit lacks standing or is otherwise legally deficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so youre just another faceless voice on the interrnet,,, got it,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm just explaining WHY there is no writ granted.
> 
> The fact is, there's no writ granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then why are you so scared???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of 'Theater for Dipshits' makes you think I'm scared?
> 
> I'm laughing at you poor, unfortunate souls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you keep desperately clinging to, "The Court hasn't agreed to hear it yet, so that HAS to mean they agree with me!!!"  That tells me you're scared.  Also the fact that you're determinedly trying to make this about issues it's not about at all, so that you can avoid having to address the ACTUAL issues in play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, if your best legal argument is your assessment of my _emotions,_ you're done.
> 
> I've laid out why the Texas case is pure, molten garbage in detail. The courts have not yet granted cert, nor recognized standing. There's a hearing.
> 
> We'll see what happens.
Click to expand...


Dude, your best legal argument IS your emotions.  So you've been done before you ever started talking.

You've laid out why the case YOU'VE IMAGINED TEXAS IS MAKING is garbage.  You have yet to address what Texas is actually doing, because you haven't bothered to know.  You saw the headline, and immediately started yapping about your fantasies.  This is obvious by the way you keep parroting, "The Court hasn't granted cert, so that must mean the case sucks", totally oblivious to the fact that the case was filed LESS THAN 24 HOURS AGO, you blithering scrotum hat.

Whatever we see happen, it will bear no relation to your fever dreams.


----------



## Skylar

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would do better if you read it first,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.
> 
> just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't do what?
> 
> The Supreme Court hasn't granted a writ. We're explaining why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and what are the credentials of "we" that we should consider their opinion???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We would be anyone in this thread who is explaining why this suit lacks standing or is otherwise legally deficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so youre just another faceless voice on the interrnet,,, got it,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm just explaining WHY there is no writ granted.
> 
> The fact is, there's no writ granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then why are you so scared???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of 'Theater for Dipshits' makes you think I'm scared?
> 
> I'm laughing at you poor, unfortunate souls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you keep desperately clinging to, "The Court hasn't agreed to hear it yet, so that HAS to mean they agree with me!!!"  That tells me you're scared.  Also the fact that you're determinedly trying to make this about issues it's not about at all, so that you can avoid having to address the ACTUAL issues in play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, if your best legal argument is your assessment of my _emotions,_ you're done.
> 
> I've laid out why the Texas case is pure, molten garbage in detail. The courts have not yet granted cert, nor recognized standing. There's a hearing.
> 
> We'll see what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, your best legal argument IS your emotions.  So you've been done before you ever started talking.
> 
> You've laid out why the case YOU'VE IMAGINED TEXAS IS MAKING is garbage.  You have yet to address what Texas is actually doing, because you haven't bothered to know.  You saw the headline, and immediately started yapping about your fantasies.  This is obvious by the way you keep parroting, "The Court hasn't granted cert, so that must mean the case sucks", totally oblivious to the fact that the case was filed LESS THAN 24 HOURS AGO, you blithering scrotum hat.
> 
> Whatever we see happen, it will bear no relation to your fever dreams.
Click to expand...


Nope. The Standing issue is obvious. I'm hardly the only one to have noticed it.



> Among the reasons the legal challenge is likely to fail, according to experts, are that the court may find Texas does not have standing to sue, it brought the legal challenge too late, or that there’s no evidence to support that the state elections were unconstitutional, and it also may take long enough for the case to be decided that the issue may be moot.



But tell us again how your assessment of my emotions magically makes the standing issue disappear?


----------



## progressive hunter

Skylar said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.
> 
> You are just flailing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has officially put the Texas election case suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, filed last night, on the docket: BREAKING – U.S. Supreme Court will hear Texa…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> therightscoop.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its docketed, they're most likely having a hearing. It doesn't mean that cert has been granted. But it means that they're probably going to listen to arguments.
> 
> And the case being docketed for today strongly suggests that the courts recognize the significance of the Safe Harbor date. As same day turn around is extraordinarily rare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you saying what the great and mighty colfax was wrong???
> 
> by gosh youre right he was wrong,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying what I said: if its docketed, they probably have a hearing. And the fact that the hearing is today strongly suggests the court recognizes the significance of the safe harbor date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but he said  all it meant was the case was filed,, which is clearly wrong,, and he called us idiots,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's between you and him.
> 
> It being on the docket means there's most likely a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but he wont listen to me when hes wrong,, so thanks for showing him he was wrong,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is, is. A placement on the docket is an indication of a likely hearing.
> 
> We'll see what happens.
Click to expand...

dont try and walk it back,,, he was wrong and you showed him that so thanks,,,


----------



## Skylar

progressive hunter said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.
> 
> You are just flailing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has officially put the Texas election case suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, filed last night, on the docket: BREAKING – U.S. Supreme Court will hear Texa…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> therightscoop.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its docketed, they're most likely having a hearing. It doesn't mean that cert has been granted. But it means that they're probably going to listen to arguments.
> 
> And the case being docketed for today strongly suggests that the courts recognize the significance of the Safe Harbor date. As same day turn around is extraordinarily rare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you saying what the great and mighty colfax was wrong???
> 
> by gosh youre right he was wrong,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying what I said: if its docketed, they probably have a hearing. And the fact that the hearing is today strongly suggests the court recognizes the significance of the safe harbor date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but he said  all it meant was the case was filed,, which is clearly wrong,, and he called us idiots,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's between you and him.
> 
> It being on the docket means there's most likely a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but he wont listen to me when hes wrong,, so thanks for showing him he was wrong,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is, is. A placement on the docket is an indication of a likely hearing.
> 
> We'll see what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dont try and walk it back,,, he was wrong and you showed him that so thanks,,,
Click to expand...

Whatever baggage you have with Colfax are between you and Colfax. I'm not part of your melodrama.


----------



## progressive hunter

Skylar said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.
> 
> Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.
> 
> _Good luck with that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.
> 
> A circular argument from a circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.
> 
> Why are you so scared of all this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no violation. That was easy.
> 
> And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems....._wildly unlikely. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.
> 
> And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.
> 
> The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.
> 
> Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.
> 
> Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?
> 
> All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
> 
> Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
> 
> This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
> 
> Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
> 
> Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
> 
> I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.
> 
> Yes, they have.
> 
> So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.
> 
> The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.
> 
> The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.
> 
> You're still stuck at square one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.
> 
> You are just flailing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has officially put the Texas election case suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, filed last night, on the docket: BREAKING – U.S. Supreme Court will hear Texa…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> therightscoop.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its docketed, they're most likely having a hearing. It doesn't mean that cert has been granted. But it means that they're probably going to listen to arguments.
> 
> And the case being docketed for today strongly suggests that the courts recognize the significance of the Safe Harbor date. As same day turn around is extraordinarily rare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you saying what the great and mighty colfax was wrong???
> 
> by gosh youre right he was wrong,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying what I said: if its docketed, they probably have a hearing. And the fact that the hearing is today strongly suggests the court recognizes the significance of the safe harbor date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but he said  all it meant was the case was filed,, which is clearly wrong,, and he called us idiots,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's between you and him.
> 
> It being on the docket means there's most likely a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but he wont listen to me when hes wrong,, so thanks for showing him he was wrong,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is, is. A placement on the docket is an indication of a likely hearing.
> 
> We'll see what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dont try and walk it back,,, he was wrong and you showed him that so thanks,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever baggage you have with Colfax are between you and Colfax. I'm not part of your melodrama.
Click to expand...

a simple "your welcome" would suffice,,,


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

One state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.


----------



## iceberg

Cecilie1200 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the nice thing about this suit is that the USSC doesn't have to spend the lengthy amount of time that would be necessary to look into claims of fraud.  All they have to look at is the clear record of the actions that were taken, and whether or not they violate the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which they did. Wonder what their findings will be??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right now, I'm just waiting to see if they'll choose to hear the case.
Click to expand...

far as i know it's been officially docketed. the GOP case against PA was brushed off. the guess is theres original jurisdiction in the Texas vs. States case.


----------



## JLW

The OP's lawsuit is dead on arrival.  You Trumpers should stop making complete asses of yourselves with these bullshit lawsuits and threads.


----------



## Skylar

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> One state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.


Not when the issue involved is another State's internal laws. There's no such assumption of standing.


----------



## Skylar

iceberg said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the nice thing about this suit is that the USSC doesn't have to spend the lengthy amount of time that would be necessary to look into claims of fraud.  All they have to look at is the clear record of the actions that were taken, and whether or not they violate the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which they did. Wonder what their findings will be??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right now, I'm just waiting to see if they'll choose to hear the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> far as i know it's been officially docketed. the GOP case against PA was brushed off. the guess is theres original jurisdiction in the Texas vs. States case.
Click to expand...


If the court grants cert, then apparently.

The court has not granted cert, nor found that Texas even has standing. This is just a hearing.

That means that at least one justice has some questions. We'll see what happens.


----------



## iceberg

Johnlaw said:


> The OP's lawsuit is dead on arrival.  You Trumpers should stop making complete asses of yourselves with these bullshit lawsuits and threads.


can we scream CHINA instead and shift to China helping Biden win? block everything for 3+ years while we prove it?

that would seem to be more to your liking, but this is at least officially our legal process whether you like it or not.


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS

Hey leftists, remember when your masters used to run to Californias ninth circus court to overturn other states decisions so it could go to the supreme court because you had the leftist kook majority there? 

Who has the majority now?
Hahahahaahahahahaha!


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> Not when the issue involved is another State's internal laws. There's no such assumption of standing.


Bullshit! You aren't even half good at lying. And look at all the practice you get.
Virtually every post of yours is based on a lie of some sort. 
This one is just moronic, but then, they all are.


----------



## BlindBoo

A sign of things to come?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a request from Pennsylvania Republicans to block certification of the commonwealth's election results, delivering a near fatal blow to the GOP's long-shot bid to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden's victory.

The Supreme Court's action is a crushing loss for Trump, who suggested as late as Tuesday that he thought the justices -- including three of his nominees -- might step in and take his side as he has continually and falsely suggested there was massive voter fraud during the election.

The one-line order was issued with no noted dissents. The court is made up of six conservative justices and three liberals.










						Supreme Court rejects Pennsylvania Republicans' attempt to block Biden victory
					

The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a request from Pennsylvania Republicans to block certification of the commonwealth's election results, delivering a near fatal blow to the GOP's long-shot bid to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden's victory.




					www.cnn.com


----------



## Skylar

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the issue involved is another State's internal laws. There's no such assumption of standing.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! You aren't even half good at lying. And look at all the practice you get.
> Virtually every post of yours is based on a lie of some sort.
> This one is just moronic, but then, they all are.
Click to expand...


Then it will be remarkably easy for you to back your claim that one state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Johnlaw said:


> The OP's lawsuit is dead on arrival. You Trumpers should stop making complete asses of yourselves with these bullshit lawsuits and threads.


How ironic is this?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
> 
> 
> 
> Bush v Gore was the last case I can remember in which basic matters of election fraud and denied equal protection was addressed by the court.
> 
> Remember?
Click to expand...


I also seem to recall the Supreme Court finding that the state government had violated the Constitution by changing the law without the legislature's input.  Even though the state court that did it declared that what they did was fine and dandy.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> Then it will be remarkably easy for you to back your claim that one state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.


What I said is not in doubt. So I don't need to back my claim.


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS

The leftist on this board aren't their usual smug selves regarding this SC issue. Could it be they're worried about this one? 
They're back to trying to convince themselves its never going to happen. 
Funny as hell.


----------



## Mac-7

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> One state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.


Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going on


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Cecilie1200 said:


> I also seem to recall the Supreme Court finding that the state government had violated the Constitution by changing the law without the legislature's input. Even though the state court that did it declared that what they did was fine and dandy.


The states in this election have revealed themselves to be partisan to a high degree.
That's why courts that regularly reject law suits from Trump lawyers are expected to do so and surprise no one.
They are stepping stones to the Supreme Court on automatic appeal.


----------



## airplanemechanic

Skylar said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and federal judges have said they have provided no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems Texas has plenty of proof. Lets see what the Texas Supreme Court does. I'd say the SC will be getting the case, how bout you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Texas Supreme Court? What relevance would the Texas Supreme Court have for votes in another State?
Click to expand...


Not sure if you're too stupid to realize it or what but Biden would preside over more states than just the ones he "won".


----------



## Skylar

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it will be remarkably easy for you to back your claim that one state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> What I said is not in doubt. So I don't need to back my claim.
Click to expand...


If its 'not in doubt', then it will be remarkably easy for you to factually establish.

If you're merely making up pseudo-legal gibberish backed by nothing, you'll keep giving us excuses why you can't.

Choose.


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS

Mac-7 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> One state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going on
Click to expand...


Some  understand and are scared shitless.
Skylar comes to mind.


----------



## Norman

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
Click to expand...


Best lawsuit I have ever seen.


----------



## Skylar

airplanemechanic said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and federal judges have said they have provided no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems Texas has plenty of proof. Lets see what the Texas Supreme Court does. I'd say the SC will be getting the case, how bout you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Texas Supreme Court? What relevance would the Texas Supreme Court have for votes in another State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure if you're too stupid to realize it or what but Biden would preside over more states than just the ones he "won".
Click to expand...


You clearly didn't read the conversation you're responding to.

Try again.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Mac-7 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> One state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going on
Click to expand...

95% bluff...backed up by little to none actual understanding.


----------



## otto105

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
Click to expand...

This monkey poop suit will be tossed like every other one.

The texas ag should immediately resign for failing to do his job with any sense of honor.


----------



## otto105

iceberg said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
> 
> So much for "state's rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> states trampled over our rights to change laws outside of process and checks and balances.
> 
> eat it.
Click to expand...

Move on, loser.


----------



## Skylar

LAUGHatLEFTISTS said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> One state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some  understand and are scared shitless.
> Skylar comes to mind.
Click to expand...


Or....a hearing just means the case is being discussed among the justices. Today the court denied cert to _Kelly, Mike et Al. V Pennsylvania_. It received the same docketed hearing that Texas' petition just got.....but on December 3rd.






A hearing merely means the case is being discussed by the justices. Not that cert has been granted, or that the parties even have standing, or that the claims have any legal merit.

As _Kelly, Mike et Al. V Pennsylvania_'s rejection by the courts today demonstrates elegantly.

It merely means that at least one justice has some questions they want to discuss.


----------



## Mac-7

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> One state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 95% bluff...backed up by little to none actual understanding.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the merits of the case mean nothing if the high court does not want to hear it


----------



## Skylar

Mac-7 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> One state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 95% bluff...backed up by little to none actual understanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately the merits of the case mean nothing if the high court does not want to hear it
Click to expand...


Or if the case has no merits, the high court does not want to hear it.


----------



## otto105

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
> 
> So much for "state's rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why Texas went to the SC, to protect the rights of it's citizens to a fair EC process.
> 
> Note they are not trying to prove fraud, they are trying to say the processes these States used to circumvent normal election law due to COVID made the votes insecure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Taking legal action over suspect election irregularities is a coup...
> 
> ...but spying on an opposition campaign using the FISA courts, "wire tapping" the Trump administration, setting up sham prosecutions of Trump appointees to force Trump to resign, and trying unsuccessfully multiple times to impeach on bullshit grounds, is not a coup.
> 
> It all makes sense.
> 
> Just like a person with a swinging Dick is a woman, or one of the 80+ made up genders.
Click to expand...


Who spied on a campaign? What wire tapped anything?

Are all your posts a fact free tour of victimhood.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

otto105 said:


> Who spied on a campaign? What wire tapped anything?
> 
> Are all your posts a fact free tour of victimhood.


Sure. This verified Chinese spy just hung around Diane Feinstein for twenty years because he needed a job.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
> 
> 
> 
> Bush v Gore was the last case I can remember in which basic matters of election fraud and denied equal protection was addressed by the court.
> 
> Remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush V. Gore wasn't adjudicated by a State court.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
Click to expand...


"It doesn't count unless you show THIS narrow type of situation, which I have decided is the only thing that is evidence."

In case I haven't said it lately, fuck you.

The Florida Supreme Court in 2000 decided that it was peachy-keen with the laws for recounts to continue in only four counties, despite the laws made by the Florida legislature (and the US Constitution, which I know as a leftist you have completely forgotten exists).  While they were not subsequently called upon to make a ruling as to whether or not their previous ruling was legal, one assumes they would have done so had it come up.

The US Supreme Court stepped in and said their ruling was an Unconstitutional pile of shit, in much politer terms.

This time, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that it was fine to change election deadlines without consulting the legislature, and the US Supreme Court has another opportunity to tell a lower court that they don't get to ignore the US Constitution, even though leftist shitheads like you try to every chance you get.


----------



## Skylar

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
> 
> 
> 
> Bush v Gore was the last case I can remember in which basic matters of election fraud and denied equal protection was addressed by the court.
> 
> Remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush V. Gore wasn't adjudicated by a State court.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It doesn't count unless you show THIS narrow type of situation, which I have decided is the only thing that is evidence."
> 
> In case I haven't said it lately, fuck you.
> 
> The Florida Supreme Court in 2000 decided that it was peachy-keen with the laws for recounts to continue in only four counties, despite the laws made by the Florida legislature (and the US Constitution, which I know as a leftist you have completely forgotten exists).  While they were not subsequently called upon to make a ruling as to whether or not their previous ruling was legal, one assumes they would have done so had it come up.
> 
> The US Supreme Court stepped in and said their ruling was an Unconstitutional pile of shit, in much politer terms.
> 
> This time, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that it was fine to change election deadlines without consulting the legislature, and the US Supreme Court has another opportunity to tell a lower court that they don't get to ignore the US Constitution, even though leftist shitheads like you try to every chance you get.
Click to expand...


And.....where is the case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court?


----------



## otto105

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who spied on a campaign? What wire tapped anything?
> 
> Are all your posts a fact free tour of victimhood.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. This verified Chinese spy just hung around Diane Feinstein for twenty years because he needed a job.
Click to expand...

Is that supposed to mean anything outside of the wingnut noise machine.


----------



## skye

Bless Texas!!!!!  that was a masterful move my friends!

.....and now Louisiana joined Texas! 

*Louisiana just joined Texas in the SCOTUS Motion against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin *on the grounds that various changes to their voting rules or procedures – either through the courts or via executive actions – violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they did not go through the legislature


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

otto105 said:


> Is that supposed to mean anything outside of the wingnut noise machine.


Not to a moderately functioning retarded man like you.  Just ignore my post.
Diane Feinstein employed a Chinese spy for twenty years...nothing to see there.


----------



## Toro

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
Click to expand...


lol

zero chance


----------



## colfax_m

Skylar said:


> It being on the docket means there's most likely a hearing.


It doesn’t mean the court has taken up the case. No devisions have been made.


----------



## JLW

Mac-7 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> One state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going on
Click to expand...

Lol..You haven’t a clue.


----------



## colfax_m

Mac-7 said:


> Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going on


It’s obvious that this is desperation on part of Trump supporters.


----------



## iceberg

Louisiana has jumped on the Texas lawsuit.

getting fun now, people.


----------



## iceberg

colfax_m said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going on
> 
> 
> 
> It’s obvious that this is desperation on part of Trump supporters.
Click to expand...

yet here you are again providing zero facts and just speculating your pretty little keyboard away.

cute.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Billiejeens said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. The Supreme can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.
> 
> 
> 
> Right  .... the Supreme Court will just ignore this all like it never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus he's thick. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
Click to expand...


I kinda feel for them, because they're going to be pilloried no matter which way they go.

On the other hand, they knew the risks of the job when they decided to pursue it.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it will be remarkably easy for you to back your claim that one state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> What I said is not in doubt. So I don't need to back my claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its 'not in doubt', then it will be remarkably easy for you to factually establish.
> 
> If you're merely making up pseudo-legal gibberish backed by nothing, you'll keep giving us excuses why you can't.
> 
> Choose.
Click to expand...










						suits-between-two-or-more-states
					






					www.law.cornell.edu


----------



## Mac-7

colfax_m said:


> It’s obvious that this is desperation on part of Trump supporters.


Stuffing the ballot boxes was an act of desperation by the democrats


----------



## Skylar

colfax_m said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> It being on the docket means there's most likely a hearing.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn’t mean the court has taken up the case. No devisions have been made.
Click to expand...


You and I may be talking past each other. When I say 'hearing', I mean that the justices meet to discuss the case. That's it.

Not that the court has agreed to hear the case, not that they have granted writ, not that they have recognized standing, or that the case has any legal merit.

*Merely, that the justices are going to talk about the case. *And discussing a case doesn't mean they will grant the writ. 

This was demonstrated elegantly today with _Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v. Pennsylvania, et al._. Certiorari was denied. However, this same case appeared on the justices docket on December 3rd:






And yet it was denied cert. Demonstrating that a hearing alone doesn't amount to much.


----------



## Skylar

Mac-7 said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s obvious that this is desperation on part of Trump supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> Stuffing the ballot boxes was an act of desperation by the democrats
Click to expand...


Or......imagining a 'stolen election' is an act of desperation by you.


----------



## Mac-7

Cecilie1200 said:


> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. The Supreme can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.
> 
> 
> 
> Right  .... the Supreme Court will just ignore this all like it never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus he's thick. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kinda feel for them, because they're going to be pilloried no matter which way they go.
> 
> On the other hand, they knew the risks of the job when they decided to pursue it.
Click to expand...

Its a long shot

dems have four votes counting roberts and only need to flip one conservative judge


----------



## Skylar

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it will be remarkably easy for you to back your claim that one state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> What I said is not in doubt. So I don't need to back my claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its 'not in doubt', then it will be remarkably easy for you to factually establish.
> 
> If you're merely making up pseudo-legal gibberish backed by nothing, you'll keep giving us excuses why you can't.
> 
> Choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> suits-between-two-or-more-states
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
Click to expand...

Did you even read what you linked to?

Where does it say that one state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court? 

Just cut and paste relevant passage. 

I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Dr Grump

Cecilie1200 said:


> Actually, the Texas suit does say that, but you wouldn't know, since you've been pulling ASSumptions about what their suit out of your anus from the start.
> 
> I'm going to do you a favor and actually show you how ignorant you're being . . . and do everyone else a favor by showing them it's actually stupidity, since you won't read this any more than you read the OP article.
> 
> The US Constitution - you may have heard of it; that's the document your thought masters keep telling you is toilet paper - states very clearly that election law must be passed by the state legislators.  It cannot be decided or changed by anyone else.  Not the governor, not the Secretary of State, not the election boards, and not the state Supreme Court.
> 
> States such as Pennsylvania had their election laws changed by people who weren't the state legislature.
> 
> Here is the contention of the state of Texas:
> 
> _This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.
> 
> Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards. For presidential elections, each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution,” Paxton said in a statement. “The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution._
> 
> Which answers the questions of both standing and harm.
> 
> And now you know that every "point" you've made based on what you ASSumed was happening was so much flatulence.
> 
> You're welcome.


Almost as dumb as your post I reckon. Cecille proves again she is not only dumb as a post, but one wonders where she gets her arrogance from. I've seen 1000 year old mummies showing more signs of intelligence.









						Legal experts label latest US election case the ‘dumbest’ they’ve ever seen
					

Legal experts have shredded an audacious new lawsuit challenging the results of America’s presidential election in four swing states, calling it the “craziest” and “dumbest” case of the entire post-election period.




					www.news.com.au
				




Snip:
_Legal experts have shredded an audacious new lawsuit challenging the results of America’s presidential election in four swing states, calling it the “craziest” and “dumbest” case of the entire post-election period.
Ultimately, he wants the Supreme Court to order that each state ignore its popular vote and choose its electors via the state legislature instead.
Incidentally,* all four state legislatures are controlled by the Republican Party.*

He noted that *Texas’s Solictor General Kyle Hawkins*, whose job it is to supervise and conduct the state’s litigation in the Supreme Court,* had not put his name on the lawsuit*, surmising that Mr Hawkins “surely would not sign this garbage”.

“Calling this garbage might be generous,” he said.

Eugene Mazo from the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law told Law & Crime Mr Paxton’s lawsuit was the “craziest case” of the post-election period.
“This is the dumbest case any lawyer has ever seen, and the Supreme Court won’t touch it. Really, this is the craziest case of them all. Unbelievable,” Prof Mazo said.
“It’s just unbelievable to any sane, normal person who understands the structure of our constitutional system and how it functions.”_


----------



## iceberg

__





						Zerohedge
					

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero




					www.zerohedge.com


----------



## otto105

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that supposed to mean anything outside of the wingnut noise machine.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to a moderately functioning retarded man like you.  Just ignore my post.
> Diane Feinstein employed a Chinese spy for twenty years...nothing to see there.
Click to expand...

You should just stay in your bubble.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
> way to victory.  The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.
> 
> And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
> slitting their own wrists.
Click to expand...


I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it.  I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point.  I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case.  I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.


----------



## Skylar

Dr Grump said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Texas suit does say that, but you wouldn't know, since you've been pulling ASSumptions about what their suit out of your anus from the start.
> 
> I'm going to do you a favor and actually show you how ignorant you're being . . . and do everyone else a favor by showing them it's actually stupidity, since you won't read this any more than you read the OP article.
> 
> The US Constitution - you may have heard of it; that's the document your thought masters keep telling you is toilet paper - states very clearly that election law must be passed by the state legislators.  It cannot be decided or changed by anyone else.  Not the governor, not the Secretary of State, not the election boards, and not the state Supreme Court.
> 
> States such as Pennsylvania had their election laws changed by people who weren't the state legislature.
> 
> Here is the contention of the state of Texas:
> 
> _This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.
> 
> Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards. For presidential elections, each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution,” Paxton said in a statement. “The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution._
> 
> Which answers the questions of both standing and harm.
> 
> And now you know that every "point" you've made based on what you ASSumed was happening was so much flatulence.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Almost as dumb as your post I reckon. Cecille proves again she is not only dumb as a post, but one wonders where she gets her arrogance from. I've seen 1000 year old mummies showing more signs of intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Legal experts label latest US election case the ‘dumbest’ they’ve ever seen
> 
> 
> Legal experts have shredded an audacious new lawsuit challenging the results of America’s presidential election in four swing states, calling it the “craziest” and “dumbest” case of the entire post-election period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.news.com.au
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snip:
> _Legal experts have shredded an audacious new lawsuit challenging the results of America’s presidential election in four swing states, calling it the “craziest” and “dumbest” case of the entire post-election period.
> Ultimately, he wants the Supreme Court to order that each state ignore its popular vote and choose its electors via the state legislature instead.
> Incidentally,* all four state legislatures are controlled by the Republican Party.*
> 
> He noted that *Texas’s Solictor General Kyle Hawkins*, whose job it is to supervise and conduct the state’s litigation in the Supreme Court,* had not put his name on the lawsuit*, surmising that Mr Hawkins “surely would not sign this garbage”.
> 
> “Calling this garbage might be generous,” he said.
> 
> Eugene Mazo from the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law told Law & Crime Mr Paxton’s lawsuit was the “craziest case” of the post-election period.
> “This is the dumbest case any lawyer has ever seen, and the Supreme Court won’t touch it. Really, this is the craziest case of them all. Unbelievable,” Prof Mazo said.
> “It’s just unbelievable to any sane, normal person who understands the structure of our constitutional system and how it functions.”_
Click to expand...


Personally, I think the Texas AG is angling for a pre-emptive pardon


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one more example of traitorous Republicans trying to overturn an election and install their candidate.
Click to expand...


Wow, a moral condemnation from the poster girl for the party of election fraud and disenfranchisement.  You'll excuse me if I don't cry myself to sleep at night for not having the good opinion of someone I wouldn't piss on if she were on fire.


----------



## iceberg

Cecilie1200 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
> way to victory.  The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.
> 
> And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
> slitting their own wrists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it.  I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point.  I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case.  I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...

with LA joining in on the Texas lawsuit, you'll likely see more states join in also.

i felt as the left said NO MAIL IN - JUST SEND BALLOTS IT'S SECURE it was going around process and procedure.

guess we'll find out.


----------



## AceRothstein

Mac-7 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> One state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going on
Click to expand...

LOL, you guys have been claiming every new court case is going to be "the one" for a month now. A month later Trump and his allies have lost 50 cases. This will just be another loss.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Billiejeens said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
> way to victory.  The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.
> 
> And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with all of that.
> I'm not sure what remedy will solve the issue though
> 
> Most likely it will be some version of yes the Democrats  committed massive fraud, but we see no political  remedy to repair that.
> the court will find that Biden is illegitimate - but he will still be seated.
> Some people will be found guilty of criminal charges - some of civil charges.
> 
> Mostly low level players.
Click to expand...


The remedy Texas is asking for is for those state legislatures to choose the electors, I believe.  Not sure if the Supreme Court can do that, or if they'll be willing to.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot not allowing cheating democrats to ignore the Constitution
> 
> Biden cannot and will not cheat his way to the Presidency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: we don't like the results of the election so we'll claim fraud without evidence and if the courts won't give us our way, we'll try and get the Republican state legislatures to install our candidate.
Click to expand...


Yeah, we should quietly accept the results of the election the way you leftists accepted the results in 2016.


----------



## Skylar

Cecilie1200 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
> way to victory.  The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.
> 
> And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
> slitting their own wrists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it.  I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point.  I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case.  I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...


The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes loyalty to Trump or the Republican party by any justice.....rather than loyalty to the law and the Constitution.

As the court rejecting _Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v Pennsylvania, et al. _just this morning elegantly demonstrated, you're likely going to be very disappointed.


----------



## Dogbiscuit

iceberg said:


> Louisiana has jumped on the Texas lawsuit.
> 
> getting fun now, people.


I heard this earlier, but cant find any articles.


----------



## otto105

Cecilie1200 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
> way to victory.  The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.
> 
> And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
> slitting their own wrists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it.  I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point.  I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case.  I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...

Wrong, and stupid.


Move on loser.


----------



## Cecilie1200

iceberg said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
> way to victory.  The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.
> 
> And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
> slitting their own wrists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it.  I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point.  I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case.  I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with LA joining in on the Texas lawsuit, you'll likely see more states join in also.
> 
> i felt as the left said NO MAIL IN - JUST SEND BALLOTS IT'S SECURE it was going around process and procedure.
> 
> guess we'll find out.
Click to expand...


I'll be curious to see which states, if any, decide to join Texas.

And have I mentioned . . . God bless Texas?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
> way to victory.  The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.
> 
> And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
> slitting their own wrists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it.  I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point.  I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case.  I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes loyalty to Trump or the Republican party by any justice.....rather than loyalty to the law and the Constitution.
> 
> As the court rejecting _Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v Pennsylvania, et al. _just this morning elegantly demonstrated, you're likely going to be very disappointed.
Click to expand...


A "problem" with the reasoning that exists only in the mind of a leftist "I would behave this way, so I assume everyone would" dipshit bothers me not at all.

Hold your breath waiting for me to defend something that you only imagine I said.


----------



## iceberg

Dogbiscuit said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Louisiana has jumped on the Texas lawsuit.
> 
> getting fun now, people.
> 
> 
> 
> I heard this earlier, but cant find any articles.
Click to expand...

zero hedge. i just posted it a few more down.


----------



## JimBowie1958

CrusaderFrank said:


> Do you ever read the articles?  Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?


Progs get their ideas by deducing what is true from their ideology.

Facts are not needed for them, it is a self warranting system of assertion based on ideological preference.


----------



## Jim H - VA USA

colfax_m said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> It being on the docket means there's most likely a hearing.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn’t mean the court has taken up the case. No devisions have been made.
Click to expand...

" If the Justices decide to accept a case (grant a petition for _certiorari_), the case is placed on the docket. "





__





						Supreme Court Procedures
					

Background  Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court of the United States. Currently, there are nine Justices on the Court. Before taking office, each Justice must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Justices hold office during good...




					www.uscourts.gov


----------



## Mac-7

AceRothstein said:


> This will just be another loss.


Maybe

the unelected black robs are in a very shaky position

and it only takes one judge to go wobbly


----------



## Dogbiscuit

iceberg said:


> Dogbiscuit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Louisiana has jumped on the Texas lawsuit.
> 
> getting fun now, people.
> 
> 
> 
> I heard this earlier, but cant find any articles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> zero hedge. i just posted it a few more down.
Click to expand...




iceberg said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zerohedge
> 
> 
> ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.zerohedge.com


Thanks


----------



## Skylar

AceRothstein said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> One state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, you guys have been claiming every new court case is going to be "the one" for a month now. A month later Trump and his allies have lost 50 cases. This will just be another loss.
Click to expand...


You can smell the qui


Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
> way to victory.  The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.
> 
> And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
> slitting their own wrists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it.  I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point.  I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case.  I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes loyalty to Trump or the Republican party by any justice.....rather than loyalty to the law and the Constitution.
> 
> As the court rejecting _Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v Pennsylvania, et al. _just this morning elegantly demonstrated, you're likely going to be very disappointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "problem" with the reasoning that exists only in the mind of a leftist "I would behave this way, so I assume everyone would" dipshit bothers me not at all.
> 
> Hold your breath waiting for me to defend something that you only imagine I said.
Click to expand...


You get that this is the longest of long shots, yes? That the odds of this effecting the outcome of the election is roughly the number that comes just after zero?


----------



## iceberg

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
> way to victory.  The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.
> 
> And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
> slitting their own wrists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it.  I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point.  I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case.  I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes loyalty to Trump or the Republican party by any justice.....rather than loyalty to the law and the Constitution.
> 
> As the court rejecting _Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v Pennsylvania, et al. _just this morning elegantly demonstrated, you're likely going to be very disappointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "problem" with the reasoning that exists only in the mind of a leftist "I would behave this way, so I assume everyone would" dipshit bothers me not at all.
> 
> Hold your breath waiting for me to defend something that you only imagine I said.
Click to expand...

this is what is so funny. the left is so hellbent on making up stupid interpretation of what you said and then attacking their known misintrepretations as if you said it.


----------



## skye

Louisiana has joined Texas and  ................now Alabama has joined too!!!!!!

Wohoooooooooo Alabama!


----------



## iceberg

Skylar said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
> way to victory.  The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.
> 
> And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
> slitting their own wrists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it.  I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point.  I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case.  I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes loyalty to Trump or the Republican party by any justice.....rather than loyalty to the law and the Constitution.
> 
> As the court rejecting _Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v Pennsylvania, et al. _just this morning elegantly demonstrated, you're likely going to be very disappointed.
Click to expand...

the problem is you keep trying to tell people how they feel and you keep getting it wrong.

cute. annoying as fuck, but cute.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Officials in Georgia — where Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger recertified the state's election results again Monday after a recount — were quick to dismiss Paxton's allegations, as were leaders in the other three states named in the lawsuit.
> 
> "The allegations in the lawsuit are false and irresponsible," Georgia's deputy secretary of state, Jordan Fuchs, said in a statement Tuesday. "Texas alleges that there are 80,000 forged signatures on absentee ballots in Georgia, but they don’t bring forward a single person who this happened to. That’s because it didn’t happen."
> 
> Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel dismissed Paxton's suit as "a publicity stunt, not a serious legal pleading."
> 
> "Mr. Paxton’s actions are beneath the dignity of the office of Attorney General and the people of the great state of Texas," she said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In new lawsuit, Texas contests election results in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania
> 
> 
> Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" in the Electoral College. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, experts say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michigan and Georgia, two of the culprits, are claiming they are innocent of all charges.
> You know how to settle this dispute? Get a court, like the US Supreme Court, to hear the case
> and make a decision based on evidence.
> 
> Then we'll see if Raffensperger and Nessel have a legal leg to stand on.
> 
> Isn't that just what Texas wants too? Problem solved! Everyone goes home happy...except for Georgia and Michigan. And Pennsylvania, and Arizona. And Wisconsin.
Click to expand...


I don't think Arizona was included in the suit, because Arizona didn't have any last-minute, end-run-around-the-legislature changes.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Dogbiscuit said:


> texas is just helping out a bit, hope you dont mind if we take our country back.


I hope he does mind, indeed very much as we take our country back and shove him into deep dark depression and excessive misery.


----------



## skye

Dogbiscuit said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Louisiana has jumped on the Texas lawsuit.
> 
> getting fun now, people.
> 
> 
> 
> I heard this earlier, but cant find any articles.
Click to expand...




this is one article, there are more








						Breaking — Louisiana AND Alabama join Texas case before Supreme Court…
					

Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota and Lousiana…       Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry issued the following st…



					www.citizenfreepress.com


----------



## Cecilie1200

skye said:


> Louisiana has joined Texas and  ................now Alabama has joined too!!!!!!
> 
> Wohoooooooooo Alabama!



Wow, this is snowballing fast.


----------



## iceberg

skye said:


> Dogbiscuit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Louisiana has jumped on the Texas lawsuit.
> 
> getting fun now, people.
> 
> 
> 
> I heard this earlier, but cant find any articles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is one article, there are more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking — Louisiana AND Alabama join Texas case before Supreme Court…
> 
> 
> Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota and Lousiana…       Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry issued the following st…
> 
> 
> 
> www.citizenfreepress.com
Click to expand...

Alabama now.

Wheee - this is where the fun starts.


----------



## Skylar

Jim H - VA USA said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> It being on the docket means there's most likely a hearing.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn’t mean the court has taken up the case. No devisions have been made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> " If the Justices decide to accept a case (grant a petition for _certiorari_), the case is placed on the docket. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Procedures
> 
> 
> Background  Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court of the United States. Currently, there are nine Justices on the Court. Before taking office, each Justice must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Justices hold office during good...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.uscourts.gov
Click to expand...


Its also placed on the docket when the writ ISN'T granted.

As demonstrated by _Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v. Pennsylvania, et al._, which was placed on the docket on December 3rd....

*



And had cert denied this morning.*

It being placed on the docket merely means that the case is being discussed by the justices. Not that cert has been granted, not that the plaintiff has standing, not that the case has any merit. Merely that at least one justice has a question.


----------



## Jim H - VA USA

Skylar said:


> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> It being on the docket means there's most likely a hearing.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn’t mean the court has taken up the case. No devisions have been made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> " If the Justices decide to accept a case (grant a petition for _certiorari_), the case is placed on the docket. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Procedures
> 
> 
> Background  Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court of the United States. Currently, there are nine Justices on the Court. Before taking office, each Justice must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Justices hold office during good...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.uscourts.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its also placed on the docket when the it a writ ISN'T granted.
> 
> As demonstrated by _Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v. Pennsylvania, et al._, which was placed on the docket on December 3rd....
> 
> *View attachment 426724
> 
> And had cert denied this morning.*
> 
> It being placed on the docket merely means that the case is being discussed by the justices. Not that cert has been granted, not that the plaintiff has standing, not that the case has any merit. Merely that at least one justice has a question.
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks much.  Appreciated.


----------



## Skylar

iceberg said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
> way to victory.  The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.
> 
> And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
> slitting their own wrists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it.  I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point.  I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case.  I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes loyalty to Trump or the Republican party by any justice.....rather than loyalty to the law and the Constitution.
> 
> As the court rejecting _Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v Pennsylvania, et al. _just this morning elegantly demonstrated, you're likely going to be very disappointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the problem is you keep trying to tell people how they feel and you keep getting it wrong.
> 
> cute. annoying as fuck, but cute.
Click to expand...


Your feelings I'll leave to you. The arguments being presented is what I'll critique.


----------



## Toro

The Trump cult thinks states can sue each other over how they implement their elections.

rofl

The rubes are hilarious!


----------



## Cecilie1200

martybegan said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is saying the States in question violated the rules. This led to the increased chance of fraud.
> 
> There is no hard evidence YET, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence you ignore.  You act like the people who did it wouldn't try to hide it.
Click to expand...


I don't believe Texas has to prove any fraud.  I don't think their case even mentions fraud.  All they have to prove is that 1) the legislatures of those states passed clear and specific election laws, 2) various state government entities who are NOT the legislature decided to change those rules without consulting the state legislature, 3) the US Constitution disallows for such behavior, and 4) the people of the state of Texas (and now Louisiana and Alabama) are substantially harmed by the behavior.


----------



## JimBowie1958

LeftofLeft said:


> The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place...


If we dont get THIS ELECTION corrected there will be NO FAIR AND FREE ELECTIONS ever again. The Dimbocraps will cheat and steal EVERY ELECTION FROM HERE ON OUT!

That is what so many GOP members dont grasp; THIS IS THE HILL, THIS IS THE MOMENT OF TRUTH.

Get this right or there is no tomorrows for redress.


----------



## Lakhota

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
Click to expand...


SCOTUS won't touch this with a 10-foot pole!  Not even Trump's appointees are this crazy and evil.  NO STANDING.


----------



## JLW

Trumpers are the only morons that put their faith in known scammers and frauds. Now, the Texas AG that Trumpers are fawning over is under investigation for securities fraud. Ken Paxton is so friggin corrupt is it any wonder he finds solidarity with fellow grifter Donald Trump.


Hey Trumpist, when this is all over there is a fort in San Antonio that the Texas AG will sell you.


----------



## iceberg

Toro said:


> The Trump cult thinks states can sue each other over how they implement their elections.
> 
> rofl
> 
> The rubes are hilarious!


and you feel you can change the rules outside process whenever it suits your mood.

hilarious.


----------



## Skylar

Cecilie1200 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is saying the States in question violated the rules. This led to the increased chance of fraud.
> 
> There is no hard evidence YET, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence you ignore.  You act like the people who did it wouldn't try to hide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe Texas has to prove any fraud.  I don't think their case even mentions fraud.  All they have to prove is that 1) the legislatures of those states passed clear and specific election laws, 2) various state government entities who are NOT the legislature decided to change those rules without consulting the state legislature, 3) the US Constitution disallows for such behavior, and 4) the people of the state of Texas (and now Louisiana and Alabama) are substantially harmed by the behavior.
Click to expand...


The 3rd point of contention made by Texas are the 'irregularities' that call into question the 'integrity' of the ballots.


----------



## Skylar

Johnlaw said:


> Trumpers are the only morons that put their faith in known scammers and frauds. Now, the Texas AG that Trumpers are fawning over is under investigation for securities fraud. Ken Paxton is so friggin corrupt is it any wonder he finds solidarity with fellow grifter Donald Trump.
> 
> 
> Hey Trumpist, when this is all over there is a fort in San Antonio that the Texas AG will sell you.



I honestly think he's angling for a pardon from Trump


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
Click to expand...

haha... no amount of fail is too much fail for the gullible cult, as long as they can still sign checks over to Dear Leader's retirement fund.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is saying the States in question violated the rules. This led to the increased chance of fraud.
> 
> There is no hard evidence YET, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence you ignore.  You act like the people who did it wouldn't try to hide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States make their own rukes and they have been upheld.
Click to expand...


State LEGISLATURES make their own rules.  State officials who are NOT the state legislature do not make the rules, because that is a violation of the US Constitution.


----------



## iceberg

Cecilie1200 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is saying the States in question violated the rules. This led to the increased chance of fraud.
> 
> There is no hard evidence YET, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence you ignore.  You act like the people who did it wouldn't try to hide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe Texas has to prove any fraud.  I don't think their case even mentions fraud.  All they have to prove is that 1) the legislatures of those states passed clear and specific election laws, 2) various state government entities who are NOT the legislature decided to change those rules without consulting the state legislature, 3) the US Constitution disallows for such behavior, and 4) the people of the state of Texas (and now Louisiana and Alabama) are substantially harmed by the behavior.
Click to expand...

yea, fraud not in this one.

bypassing constitutional process is their target. and that was done so badly its not even funny.

all the draconian changes the SC is shooting down one by one such as CA and NY lockdowns.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

iceberg said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogbiscuit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Louisiana has jumped on the Texas lawsuit.
> 
> getting fun now, people.
> 
> 
> 
> I heard this earlier, but cant find any articles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is one article, there are more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking — Louisiana AND Alabama join Texas case before Supreme Court…
> 
> 
> Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota and Lousiana…       Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry issued the following st…
> 
> 
> 
> www.citizenfreepress.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alabama now.
> 
> Wheee - this is where the fun starts.
Click to expand...

Starts? I have been laughing at these idiots for a month. haven't you?  Pure comedy gold.


----------



## Toro

iceberg said:


> and you feel you can change the rules outside process whenever it suits your mood.
> 
> hilarious.



Yeah, you keep believing that's what happened.  

That's why you rubes are 1-51 in court, and now 0-1 at SCOTUS.

You're going to be 0-a whole lot more at the SCOTUS before this is all said and done.


----------



## iceberg

Skylar said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
> way to victory.  The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.
> 
> And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
> slitting their own wrists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it.  I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point.  I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case.  I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes loyalty to Trump or the Republican party by any justice.....rather than loyalty to the law and the Constitution.
> 
> As the court rejecting _Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v Pennsylvania, et al. _just this morning elegantly demonstrated, you're likely going to be very disappointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the problem is you keep trying to tell people how they feel and you keep getting it wrong.
> 
> cute. annoying as fuck, but cute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your feelings I'll leave to you. The arguments being presented is what I'll critique.
Click to expand...

i like you.

you make me laf.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is saying the States in question violated the rules. This led to the increased chance of fraud.
> 
> There is no hard evidence YET, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence you ignore.  You act like the people who did it wouldn't try to hide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the States have found no violation of their own rules.
> 
> Texas lacks standing to challenge the internal rules of another State.
Click to expand...


"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"


----------



## Toro

Cecilie1200 said:


> State LEGISLATURES make their own rules.  State officials who are NOT the state legislature do not make the rules, because that is a violation of the US Constitution.



Which is why state officials are not making rules and the legislatures are, cultist.


----------



## Toro

Cecilie1200 said:


> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"



No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.  

God you guys are stupid.


----------



## mascale

The problem the Texas AG thought Simple is fortunately way too complex.  The Elections clause has already been interpreted to include any entity or procedure that a state's constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power, even the voters themselves:  Through referendum.  The Supreme Court has already ruled that a legislature is able to delegate its authority to other entities or officials.  If the four states go after Texas districting commissions:  Then people can get the drift of the outcomes.

"Crow, James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Think of Moses learning Egyptian skills and arts, per Acts 7, as a kid growing up. Arithmetic and subjugations skills were likely included. So Among the Terrorist Imperial-Intending, "Chosen People:" Of Pharaoh's Egyptian ruling Houses: Deut 23: 19-20--likely an Egyptian, local matter!)


----------



## Toro

My favorite cult argument is "Oh, Orange Jesus appointed three Justices, so they'll rule is in his favor."

rofl


----------



## Turtlesoup

busybee01 said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull shit----------the dems making up thousands of fraudulent votes to steal election certainly harms everyone else in other states as it is used to steal elections and in this case puts a communist sell out Joe biden in to sell us all down the river not to mention allows him and his family to continue to rape little girls.   It harms texas....and florida.....and alaska and everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts have found nothing to substantiate any claim Trump ia making.
Click to expand...

I don't need a court to think for me---------I've seen the cheating first hand, I can read public opinion first hand and know trump was more popular BY FAR, I am quit good with numbers as well and know that when you have more ballots than voters something ain't right, and so much more.   Trump was cheated.........


----------



## iceberg

Toro said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
Click to expand...

yet the SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case.

so you're calling the SCOTUS stupid and claiming you know more than they do.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Cecilie1200 said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> GREAT!!
> Now the SCOTUS has to take this up.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, they don't HAVE to, technically speaking.  But it definitely ratchets up the pressure on them to address this issue.
Click to expand...

If SCOTUS does not take up this case, it would be like two people suing each other in civil court and the court decides to not accept the case.

What is left to the disputants to do other than engage in a feud till it is settled between them?

Resolving such matters peacefully is WHY we have courts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

iceberg said:


> yet the SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case.


They have to hear it to dismiss it.


----------



## Dr Grump

Skylar said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Texas suit does say that, but you wouldn't know, since you've been pulling ASSumptions about what their suit out of your anus from the start.
> 
> I'm going to do you a favor and actually show you how ignorant you're being . . . and do everyone else a favor by showing them it's actually stupidity, since you won't read this any more than you read the OP article.
> 
> The US Constitution - you may have heard of it; that's the document your thought masters keep telling you is toilet paper - states very clearly that election law must be passed by the state legislators.  It cannot be decided or changed by anyone else.  Not the governor, not the Secretary of State, not the election boards, and not the state Supreme Court.
> 
> States such as Pennsylvania had their election laws changed by people who weren't the state legislature.
> 
> Here is the contention of the state of Texas:
> 
> _This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.
> 
> Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards. For presidential elections, each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution,” Paxton said in a statement. “The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution._
> 
> Which answers the questions of both standing and harm.
> 
> And now you know that every "point" you've made based on what you ASSumed was happening was so much flatulence.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Almost as dumb as your post I reckon. Cecille proves again she is not only dumb as a post, but one wonders where she gets her arrogance from. I've seen 1000 year old mummies showing more signs of intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Legal experts label latest US election case the ‘dumbest’ they’ve ever seen
> 
> 
> Legal experts have shredded an audacious new lawsuit challenging the results of America’s presidential election in four swing states, calling it the “craziest” and “dumbest” case of the entire post-election period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.news.com.au
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snip:
> _Legal experts have shredded an audacious new lawsuit challenging the results of America’s presidential election in four swing states, calling it the “craziest” and “dumbest” case of the entire post-election period.
> Ultimately, he wants the Supreme Court to order that each state ignore its popular vote and choose its electors via the state legislature instead.
> Incidentally,* all four state legislatures are controlled by the Republican Party.*
> 
> He noted that *Texas’s Solictor General Kyle Hawkins*, whose job it is to supervise and conduct the state’s litigation in the Supreme Court,* had not put his name on the lawsuit*, surmising that Mr Hawkins “surely would not sign this garbage”.
> 
> “Calling this garbage might be generous,” he said.
> 
> Eugene Mazo from the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law told Law & Crime Mr Paxton’s lawsuit was the “craziest case” of the post-election period.
> “This is the dumbest case any lawyer has ever seen, and the Supreme Court won’t touch it. Really, this is the craziest case of them all. Unbelievable,” Prof Mazo said.
> “It’s just unbelievable to any sane, normal person who understands the structure of our constitutional system and how it functions.”_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, I think the Texas AG is angling for a pre-emptive pardon
Click to expand...

For?


----------



## Skylar

Toro said:


> My favorite cult argument is "Oh, Orange Jesus appointed three Justices, so they'll rule is in his favor."
> 
> rofl



Its a deeply corrupt argument. As if the justices are more loyal to Trump personally for appoint them......then to the law or the constitution.


----------



## JimBowie1958

LordBrownTrout said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas is ......
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're wrong again. Illinois gets that honor. I don't think you've ever been right.
Click to expand...

There is a solid reason for that....


----------



## meaner gene

Lakhota said:


> SCOTUS won't touch this with a 10-foot pole!  Not even Trump's appointees are this crazy and evil.  NO STANDING.


_U.S. Code dictates that electors shall meet and vote on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December of presidential election years. _

The supreme court would have to decide the case before December 14th, at which point it becomes moot.

Not counting weekends, that gives them 3 work days to get 'er done.


----------



## Skylar

Dr Grump said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Texas suit does say that, but you wouldn't know, since you've been pulling ASSumptions about what their suit out of your anus from the start.
> 
> I'm going to do you a favor and actually show you how ignorant you're being . . . and do everyone else a favor by showing them it's actually stupidity, since you won't read this any more than you read the OP article.
> 
> The US Constitution - you may have heard of it; that's the document your thought masters keep telling you is toilet paper - states very clearly that election law must be passed by the state legislators.  It cannot be decided or changed by anyone else.  Not the governor, not the Secretary of State, not the election boards, and not the state Supreme Court.
> 
> States such as Pennsylvania had their election laws changed by people who weren't the state legislature.
> 
> Here is the contention of the state of Texas:
> 
> _This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.
> 
> Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards. For presidential elections, each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution,” Paxton said in a statement. “The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution._
> 
> Which answers the questions of both standing and harm.
> 
> And now you know that every "point" you've made based on what you ASSumed was happening was so much flatulence.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Almost as dumb as your post I reckon. Cecille proves again she is not only dumb as a post, but one wonders where she gets her arrogance from. I've seen 1000 year old mummies showing more signs of intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Legal experts label latest US election case the ‘dumbest’ they’ve ever seen
> 
> 
> Legal experts have shredded an audacious new lawsuit challenging the results of America’s presidential election in four swing states, calling it the “craziest” and “dumbest” case of the entire post-election period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.news.com.au
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snip:
> _Legal experts have shredded an audacious new lawsuit challenging the results of America’s presidential election in four swing states, calling it the “craziest” and “dumbest” case of the entire post-election period.
> Ultimately, he wants the Supreme Court to order that each state ignore its popular vote and choose its electors via the state legislature instead.
> Incidentally,* all four state legislatures are controlled by the Republican Party.*
> 
> He noted that *Texas’s Solictor General Kyle Hawkins*, whose job it is to supervise and conduct the state’s litigation in the Supreme Court,* had not put his name on the lawsuit*, surmising that Mr Hawkins “surely would not sign this garbage”.
> 
> “Calling this garbage might be generous,” he said.
> 
> Eugene Mazo from the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law told Law & Crime Mr Paxton’s lawsuit was the “craziest case” of the post-election period.
> “This is the dumbest case any lawyer has ever seen, and the Supreme Court won’t touch it. Really, this is the craziest case of them all. Unbelievable,” Prof Mazo said.
> “It’s just unbelievable to any sane, normal person who understands the structure of our constitutional system and how it functions.”_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, I think the Texas AG is angling for a pre-emptive pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For?
Click to expand...


*FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says*

The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.

A little bit of political theater, a frivolous lawsuit and a pardon.....and all of Ken Paxton's legal troubles disappear.


----------



## Thunk

SEVEN states have now joined Texas lawsuit, arguing that the Equal Protection Clause has been violated in this election from state-to-state.

@Louisiana
, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota.


----------



## AceRothstein

Toro said:


> My favorite cult argument is "Oh, Orange Jesus appointed three Justices, so they'll rule is in his favor."
> 
> rofl


The Trump cult thinks everyone else is as partisan as they are.


----------



## JimBowie1958

bendog said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas has a good case. Its on another thread on this board.
Click to expand...

Thats why Dimbocraps let them vote, lol.


----------



## Thunk

skye said:


> Bless Texas!!!!! that was a masterful move my friends!
> 
> .....and now Louisiana joined Texas!



SEVEN states have now joined Texas lawsuit, arguing that the Equal Protection Clause has been violated in this election from state-to-state.

@Louisiana
, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota.


----------



## meaner gene

JimBowie1958 said:


> If SCOTUS does not take up this case, it would be like two people suing each other in civil court and the court decides to not accept the case.


Actually it would be like like asking the court to take one of the most important cases in their history, and have answers, briefs and oral arguments completed in three days, or the entire case becomes moot.


----------



## JimBowie1958

WelfareQueen said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: we don't like the results of the election so we'll claim fraud without evidence and if the courts won't give us our way, we'll try and get the Republican state legislatures to install our candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> This is very simple.  Please tell me you at least understand these two very basic ideas.
Click to expand...

Please tell me you are not seriously asking aliberal to think and question their ideology now?

roflmao


----------



## Jim H - VA USA

Toro said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
Click to expand...

See page 15 for standing....








						Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
					

texas ag




					www.scribd.com
				




"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."


----------



## Roudy

As much as I'd like to see another Trump term...At this point I just don't see any court overturning hundreds of thousands if not millions of votes.  Unless the evidence is irrefutable and compelling.

On another note, if the republicans are able to hold at least one seat in Georgia, then that is the best thing that could happen to this country, if not, the worst, we will not recognize this country in six months.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Hidden said:


> Everything is bigger in Texas. Including my embarrassment caused by Cruz and Paxton.
> Trump won Texas, therefore, we're not going to allow other states to have a say in the matter.


Is that really your summation of the case?

OMG, you are as stupid as Skylar.

You and he and JoeBeoch should be sterilized for the sake of humanity.


----------



## Skylar

Jim H - VA USA said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
Click to expand...


The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Cecilie1200 said:


> States such as Pennsylvania had their election laws changed by people who weren't the state legislature.


Actually, PA is the only state of the four where the legislature did change the law, but their STATE CONSTITUTION was violated that specified how the mail-in vote was to be counted, and the government of PA simply ignored their own state Constitution.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> This lawsuit is, if nothing else, a warning shot across the bow.
> Texas will lead a Constitutional Convention...which could result in Independence.


Freedom loving Americans have been watching the Globalists and Marxists take over this country for the last 40 years and felt dispair that no one would do anything about it.

That is until TRUMP came along and reversed it.

Now stupid ass Dimbocraps and Globalist Neocons think that they can simply cheat and steal it back?

No fucking way, morons.

We the People will do EVERYTHING we can up to and including secession, revolt and civil war to prevent this disgrace of a piece of shyte from ever becoming President.

END OF STORY.

Joe  Beijing Biden was NOT elected in an honest election; TRUMP was re-elected, and he will have a second term or we will have civil war.


----------



## JimBowie1958

WelfareQueen said:


> Are you really that stupid?


----------



## JimBowie1958

beautress said:


> I'm glad you started this thread, Iceberg.


   Was this thread merged?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Which state has the biggest penis???







Even Trump's legal team is impressed.

TEXAS:  Move, bitch.  (SLAM--dick on the table)

Louisiana and Alabama join.  Who is next???


----------



## JimBowie1958

iceberg said:


> far as i know it's been officially docketed. the GOP case against PA was brushed off. the guess is theres original jurisdiction in the Texas vs. States case.


Yeah, the SCOTUS declined to issue a stay of some sort in the PA case, and this was the day after Texas filed, so I think the SCOTUS is focusing on this one BIG case to make a broader decision than just PA.

But who knows?  The SCOTUS is so random these days.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Mac-7 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> One state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going on
Click to expand...

Which is merely par for the course.


----------



## meaner gene

JimBowie1958 said:


> Actually, PA is the only state of the four where the legislature did change the law, but their STATE CONSTITUTION was violated that specified how the mail-in vote was to be counted, and the government of PA simply ignored their own state Constitution.



Then why are they in federal court, there is no federal issue, as you said, it's a matter of their state constitution.  That's what state courts are for.


----------



## JimBowie1958

iceberg said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your feelings I'll leave to you. The arguments being presented is what I'll critique.
> 
> 
> 
> i like you.
> you make me laf.
Click to expand...

The world is full of drunks and fools that make me laugh, but I dont LIKE any of them.


----------



## Dr Grump

JimBowie1958 said:


> Freedom loving Americans have been watching the Globalists and Marxists take over this country for the last 40 years and felt dispair that no one would do anything about it.
> 
> That is until TRUMP came along and reversed it.
> 
> Now stupid ass Dimbocraps a Globalist Neocons think that they can simply cheat and steal it back?
> 
> No fucking way, morons.
> 
> We the People will do EVERYTHING we can up to and including secession, revolt and civil war to prevent this disgrace of a piece of shyte from ever becoming President.
> 
> END OF STORY.
> 
> Joe  Beijing Biden was NOT elected in an honest election; TRUMP was re-elected, and he will have a second term or we will have civil war.



Oh fuck off with your conspiracy theories. What Marxists? What globalists? What is their end game?
Haven't you got a life to live. Seriously...

Please, grab your nearest firearm, go to your nearest military base and start shooting. Stop talking, start doing. The end result will be one less fascist retard polluting this Earth. Christ, fuckwits like you ARE the problem. YOU make the world a shittier place. Dropkick...


----------



## Billiejeens

Cecilie1200 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is saying the States in question violated the rules. This led to the increased chance of fraud.
> 
> There is no hard evidence YET, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence you ignore.  You act like the people who did it wouldn't try to hide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe Texas has to prove any fraud.  I don't think their case even mentions fraud.  All they have to prove is that 1) the legislatures of those states passed clear and specific election laws, 2) various state government entities who are NOT the legislature decided to change those rules without consulting the state legislature, 3) the US Constitution disallows for such behavior, and 4) the people of the state of Texas (and now Louisiana and Alabama) are substantially harmed by the behavior.
Click to expand...


Si'


----------



## JimBowie1958

https://twitter.com/ali/status/1336442519677251587?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1336442519677251587%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.citizenfreepress.com%2Fbreaking%2Fbreaking-louisiana-joins-texas-case-before-supreme-court%2F
*Ali *​* #StopTheSteal*​*aliciaeverhart30 *​​*SEVEN states have now joined Texas lawsuit, arguing that the Equal Protection Clause has been violated in this election from state-to-state.*
*@Louisiana*​*, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota. *










						Breaking — Louisiana AND Alabama join Texas case before Supreme Court…
					

Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota and Lousiana…       Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry issued the following st…



					www.citizenfreepress.com
				




*ALL RED STATE PATRIOTS SHOULD BE CALLING THEIR STATES AND DEMANDING THAT THEY JOIN THIS PATRIOTIC LAWSUIT TO STOP DIMBOCRAPS AND GLOBALIST NEOCONS FROM STEALING THE ELECTION! ! ! !*


----------



## meaner gene

JimBowie1958 said:


> Yeah, the SCOTUS declined to issue a stay of some sort in the PA case, and this was the day after Texas filed, so I think the SCOTUS is focusing on this one BIG case to make a broader decision than just PA.
> 
> But who knows?  The SCOTUS is so random these days.



The last time the USSC acted in 2000, they had until December 12th to meet the safe harbor, and until the 18th before the electoral college met.

This case already missed the safe harbor, and they have until monday or miss the electoral college vote.


----------



## meaner gene

JimBowie1958 said:


> ​​*SEVEN states have now joined Texas lawsuit, arguing that the Equal Protection Clause has been violated in this election from state-to-state.*
> *@Louisiana*​*, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota. *


Although equal protection applies within a state, but has no standing between states, since the constitutions scheme for assigning voting power violated equal protection.

Any equitable remedy would have to address it within that context.

In short, somebody given a head start, arguing the playing field should be level.


----------



## JimBowie1958

lol


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees

Roudy said:


> As much as I'd like to see another Trump term...At this point I just don't see any court overturning hundreds of thousands if not millions of votes.  Unless the evidence is irrefutable and compelling.
> 
> On another note, if the republicans are able to hold at least one seat in Georgia, then that is the best thing that could happen to this country, if not, the worst, we will not recognize this country in six months.


Can’t overturn a vote that doesn’t exist. 
A counterfeit vote is no different from counterfeit money.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Doc7505 said:


> *Don’t Mess with Texas!
> Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures*
> *Texas goes directly to the Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to order these swing states with voting irregularities to allow their legislatures to appoint presidential electors.*​
> Don't Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures | The Stream
> 8 Dec 2020 ~~ By Al Perrotta
> ~[snip]~
> 
> Just before midnight, the State of Texas threw its massive weight into the election fraud fight. Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds their ad-hoc changes to election procedures were unconstitutional. And as a result, violated the rights of Texans and those in other states that followed the constitution. Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
> What’s more, Texas isn’t fiddling around with lower courts. They marched straight to the Supreme Court. And they are requesting the Supreme Court order the offending states to allow their legislatures to appoint their presidential electors.
> *Dodging State Legislatures Was Dodgy*
> Breitbart was the first major outlet with the story, and breaks down the argument the Lone Star State is making.
> Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.​In their lawsuit, Texas claims “certain officials in the Defendant States” presented the COVID pandemic “as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in balloting.” As streiff at RedState noted, “there’s no pandemic escape hatch in the constitution.”
> ~[snip]~
> *Going to the Supreme Court…a Long Shot, Perhaps*
> Texas approached the Supreme Court directly, Breitbart reports, “because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.”
> Is the Supreme Court going to hear the case? Twitchy has collected the early reaction of legal types, and the consensus seems to be it’s a long shot the Supreme Court will hear the case, let alone rule in Texas’ favor. Several commentators note that the suit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, not the state’s solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who would be the go-to person for suits like this.
> 
> 
> Comment:
> The  Roberts court will either determine that it's none of Texas' business how other states do stuff or that the legistlatures were in session and aware of the changes and did not act, therefore they are implicitly the method determined by the legislature to be appropriate and so once again, buzz of Texas.
> This case doesn’t require evidence, it hangs upon the law being changed illegally, before the election.
> Every American voter in is being disenfranchised in this National Election by the States who were grossly negligent in their duties to conduct a free and fair election.
> All States, who abided by their State Election Rules, should join with Texas and take the scoundrels to court.


Big Texas Dick slams down on the table.

Everybody else knows what's at stake:
https://tnm.me/news/tnm-news/major-announcement-texit-legislation-filed-for-next-legislative-session
This is a not-so-veiled threat. 

The SCOTUS ordered a response.


----------



## JimBowie1958

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As much as I'd like to see another Trump term...At this point I just don't see any court overturning hundreds of thousands if not millions of votes.  Unless the evidence is irrefutable and compelling.
> On another note, if the republicans are able to hold at least one seat in Georgia, then that is the best thing that could happen to this country, if not, the worst, we will not recognize this country in six months.
> 
> 
> 
> Can’t overturn a vote that doesn’t exist.
> A counterfeit vote is no different from counterfeit money.
Click to expand...

And that is the point.

SCOTUS could rule that all votes not in accord with EXISTING state law/constitutions be thrown out, as those are invalid on their face.

To say 'Oh, I thought I could vote this way, so my vote should count' does not pass legal muster.  Where can you avoid the consequences of nonlegal actions?

Democrats have tried to steal the election by ballot fraud.

Those votes should be thrown out and the leaders of this fraud should be arrested for treason, tried and executed by firing squad when found guilty.


----------



## colfax_m

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Even Trump's legal team is impressed.


That’s not saying much. These guys were impressed with a lunatic like Powell.


----------



## iceberg

JimBowie1958 said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your feelings I'll leave to you. The arguments being presented is what I'll critique.
> 
> 
> 
> i like you.
> you make me laf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The world is full of drunks and fools that make me laugh, but I dont LIKE any of them.
Click to expand...

i'm actually quoting Gung Ho. the old chinese man at the end talking to Micheal Keaton who just drove a car that fell apart in 10 feet. she's/he's got not other use in the world but their fantasies make me laugh. its basically a slam down on them for being stupid.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Daniel McCarthy Announces Arizona Legislators Invoked Article 2, Section 1 – Meaning Arizona is Officially a Contested Election - We Love Trump
					

Spread the loveArizona Republicans on Monday called for the decertification of their state’s false election results. As Cristina Laila reported — last week Arizona Rep. Mark Finchem issued a call to withhold the state’s Electoral College votes for Joe Biden because “he believes there is enough...



					beautyhabit365.com


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't just pass things. There has to be constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are. Find the thread and read it. Its on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Beyond equal protection and the fact state election laws were violated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States in question have not found that their state election laws were violated.
> 
> Nor has any of the relevant State Legislatures. Nor has the Supreme Court.
> 
> So what violation are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> State election laws are public record. I suggest you go read them. Then go look at changes made by election officials and the judiciary. This isn't rocket science. Setting to rules for elections belongs solely to the legislature. States have in fact challenged this. In PA one judge did rule it unconstitutional and it was punted over 'timeliness' not constitutionality. There is an open case in WI challenging the same thing. It was also a part of Powell's lawsuits. You don't know about because the liberal media ignored it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have. I'm asking you which court has determined that there was a violation of state election laws. And you were unable to provide any.
> 
> Not the State courts. Not the State Legislatures. Not the election officials. Not the Supreme Court.
> 
> *No one has found a violation. *So what violation are you referring to?
Click to expand...

None of them, yet, obviously, you fucking douchebag.  Once a court finds the state broke the law, then it's electoral votes get awarded to Trump and all you lying weasels start crying,.


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't just pass things. There has to be constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are. Find the thread and read it. Its on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Beyond equal protection and the fact state election laws were violated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States in question have not found that their state election laws were violated.
> 
> Nor has any of the relevant State Legislatures. Nor has the Supreme Court.
> 
> So what violation are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> State election laws are public record. I suggest you go read them. Then go look at changes made by election officials and the judiciary. This isn't rocket science. Setting to rules for elections belongs solely to the legislature. States have in fact challenged this. In PA one judge did rule it unconstitutional and it was punted over 'timeliness' not constitutionality. There is an open case in WI challenging the same thing. It was also a part of Powell's lawsuits. You don't know about because the liberal media ignored it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have. I'm asking you which court has determined that there was a violation of state election laws. And you were unable to provide any.
> 
> Not the State courts. Not the State Legislatures. Not the election officials. Not the Supreme Court.
> 
> *No one has found a violation. *So what violation are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of them, yet, obviously, you fucking douchebag.  Once a court finds the state broke the law, then it's electoral votes get awarded to Trump and all you lying weasels start crying,.
Click to expand...


So we're in agreement. There are no violations that have ever been found.


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's tons of it, you fucking moron.  You never see it because you only watch fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why, pray tell, has Trump's legal team refused to present such evidence in court......or even alleged that any fraud occured in any of their legal arguments?
> 
> There's a reason why the horseshit you're being fed from press conferences next to adult bookstores......and what Trump's attorneys are actually arguing in court have nothing to do with each other.
Click to expand...

They haven't been to court yet, numskull.


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't just pass things. There has to be constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are. Find the thread and read it. Its on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Beyond equal protection and the fact state election laws were violated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States in question have not found that their state election laws were violated.
> 
> Nor has any of the relevant State Legislatures. Nor has the Supreme Court.
> 
> So what violation are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> State election laws are public record. I suggest you go read them. Then go look at changes made by election officials and the judiciary. This isn't rocket science. Setting to rules for elections belongs solely to the legislature. States have in fact challenged this. In PA one judge did rule it unconstitutional and it was punted over 'timeliness' not constitutionality. There is an open case in WI challenging the same thing. It was also a part of Powell's lawsuits. You don't know about because the liberal media ignored it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have. I'm asking you which court has determined that there was a violation of state election laws. And you were unable to provide any.
> 
> Not the State courts. Not the State Legislatures. Not the election officials. Not the Supreme Court.
> 
> *No one has found a violation. *So what violation are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of them, yet, obviously, you fucking douchebag.  Once a court finds the state broke the law, then it's electoral votes get awarded to Trump and all you lying weasels start crying,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we're in agreement. There are no violations that have ever been found.
Click to expand...

We're in agreement that you're a lying weasel.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

You know why this is a genius move by my beloved state?

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-section-3--2
Original Jurisdiction in controversies between states. In other words, the SCOTUS MUST HEAR original cases between states.



Fuck y'all bitches.  The party JUST STARTED!!!


----------



## Lesh

Jesus. Elections are a state matter. They are governed by THAT STATES laws and adjudicated by that states court system.

One state can not sue another state over how that state runs its elections.

This is beyond silly. I mean worthy of Rudy Toot Toot silly


----------



## DukeU

BlindBoo said:


> DukeU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> While Michigan voters expanded mail ballot options to all voters by referendum in 2018, the state legislature did not make corresponding upstream and downstream policy changes to the election ecosystem that would facilitate a quicker, more efficient count. The Bipartisan Policy Center’s Task Force on Elections made several recommendations in January 2020 that align, in part, with those adopted in Michigan on September 24.
> 
> The bill package offers enhanced security for mail ballots, more processing time, correction of common voter errors, and better access for overseas military personnel and their spouses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Michigan Judge Extends Mailed Ballot Receipt Deadline In ...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if they were counted and they all went to Grumpybear it wouldn't have made a difference.
> 
> "Michigan experienced a jump in the number of absentee ballots rejected because of a voter's death from the 1,782 absentee ballots turned away due to deaths in the November 2016 election, but a record 3.3 million residents voted by absentee ballot this year.
> 
> *In addition, 3,328 ballots, or 22%, of the rejected ballots in the Nov. 3 election were turned away because they arrived after polls closed at 8 p.m. on Nov. 3*. It was a huge improvement from the Aug. 4 primary election, when about 60% or more than 6,400 of the 10,600 rejected absentee ballots were turned in too late."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benson: 15,302 absentee ballots were rejected
> 
> 
> Michigan election clerks weeded out 15,302 absentee ballots in the Nov. 3 presidential election because they failed to meet legal qualifications
> 
> 
> 
> www.detroitnews.com
Click to expand...

All should have been rejected.


----------



## Kondor3

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...


Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.


----------



## BULLDOG

Thunk said:


> SEVEN states have now joined Texas lawsuit, arguing that the Equal Protection Clause has been violated in this election from state-to-state.
> 
> @Louisiana
> , Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota.



All those floundering states trying to climb into that last little lifeboat. They don't even care that it has a huge hole in it.


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's tons of it, you fucking moron.  You never see it because you only watch fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why, pray tell, has Trump's legal team refused to present such evidence in court......or even alleged that any fraud occured in any of their legal arguments?
> 
> There's a reason why the horseshit you're being fed from press conferences next to adult bookstores......and what Trump's attorneys are actually arguing in court have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They haven't been to court yet, numskull.
Click to expand...


On the contrary, Trump's legal team have been to court many, many times. 

They've neither presented the 'evidence' nor ever alleged that fraud occurred as part of their legal argument.

You're being played.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Pleadings are right here

Read it.


----------



## Kondor3

Dogbiscuit said:


> ...I wonder if any other states will climb aboard the Trump train ???


Why would anyone want to climb aboard a derailed wreck straddling the bridge and getting ready to fall into the Potomac?


----------



## Crepitus

Doc7505 said:


> *Don’t Mess with Texas!
> Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures*
> *Texas goes directly to the Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to order these swing states with voting irregularities to allow their legislatures to appoint presidential electors.*​
> Don't Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures | The Stream
> 8 Dec 2020 ~~ By Al Perrotta
> ~[snip]~
> 
> Just before midnight, the State of Texas threw its massive weight into the election fraud fight. Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds their ad-hoc changes to election procedures were unconstitutional. And as a result, violated the rights of Texans and those in other states that followed the constitution. Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
> What’s more, Texas isn’t fiddling around with lower courts. They marched straight to the Supreme Court. And they are requesting the Supreme Court order the offending states to allow their legislatures to appoint their presidential electors.
> *Dodging State Legislatures Was Dodgy*
> Breitbart was the first major outlet with the story, and breaks down the argument the Lone Star State is making.
> Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.​In their lawsuit, Texas claims “certain officials in the Defendant States” presented the COVID pandemic “as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in balloting.” As streiff at RedState noted, “there’s no pandemic escape hatch in the constitution.”
> ~[snip]~
> *Going to the Supreme Court…a Long Shot, Perhaps*
> Texas approached the Supreme Court directly, Breitbart reports, “because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.”
> Is the Supreme Court going to hear the case? Twitchy has collected the early reaction of legal types, and the consensus seems to be it’s a long shot the Supreme Court will hear the case, let alone rule in Texas’ favor. Several commentators note that the suit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, not the state’s solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who would be the go-to person for suits like this.
> 
> 
> Comment:
> The  Roberts court will either determine that it's none of Texas' business how other states do stuff or that the legistlatures were in session and aware of the changes and did not act, therefore they are implicitly the method determined by the legislature to be appropriate and so once again, buzz of Texas.
> This case doesn’t require evidence, it hangs upon the law being changed illegally, before the election.
> Every American voter in is being disenfranchised in this National Election by the States who were grossly negligent in their duties to conduct a free and fair election.
> All States, who abided by their State Election Rules, should join with Texas and take the scoundrels to court.


A.  Texas has no standing.

B.  Have we given up on the fraud angle?


----------



## iceberg

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's tons of it, you fucking moron.  You never see it because you only watch fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why, pray tell, has Trump's legal team refused to present such evidence in court......or even alleged that any fraud occured in any of their legal arguments?
> 
> There's a reason why the horseshit you're being fed from press conferences next to adult bookstores......and what Trump's attorneys are actually arguing in court have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They haven't been to court yet, numskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, Trump's legal team have been to court many, many times.
> 
> They've neither presented the 'evidence' nor ever alleged that fraud occurred as part of their legal argument.
> 
> You're being played.
Click to expand...

please post your law degrees. i wanna see what cracker jacks has in them these days.


----------



## JimH52

FUNNY SH*T!  Only a man facing multiple indictments would file such a frivolous law suit!

*Paxton, who is facing accusations of bribery and abuse of office*, is asking the Supreme Court to extend the December 14 deadline for the states' certification of presidential electors to allow for investigations into the alleged irregularities. He also wants the court to block the use of "unlawful election results without review and ratification by" the states' legislatures.


----------



## JimH52

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
> 
> So much for "state's rights."
Click to expand...


Next we will see a law suit from the* Pillow Guy.*...


----------



## K9Buck

Blaine Sweeter said:


> “There is no possible way that the state of Texas has standing to complain about how other states counted the votes and how they are about to cast their electoral votes,” Smith said."""""



If it's blatantly unconstitutional, it shouldn't matter who brings it to trial.  Besides, all the plaintiffs in the case have to do is get a citizen from the defendant states to file the complaint.  The Georgetown lawyer sounds like a far-left hack.


----------



## JimBowie1958

bripat9643 said:


> We're in agreement that you're a lying weasel.


Well, to provide a complete picture, I think you need to also include 'moron', 'dumbass', 'ignoramus', and 'twatface beoch'.

That covers it, pretty much.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Crepitus said:


> Doc7505 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Don’t Mess with Texas!
> Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures*
> *Texas goes directly to the Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to order these swing states with voting irregularities to allow their legislatures to appoint presidential electors.*​
> Don't Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures | The Stream
> 8 Dec 2020 ~~ By Al Perrotta
> ~[snip]~
> 
> Just before midnight, the State of Texas threw its massive weight into the election fraud fight. Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds their ad-hoc changes to election procedures were unconstitutional. And as a result, violated the rights of Texans and those in other states that followed the constitution. Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
> What’s more, Texas isn’t fiddling around with lower courts. They marched straight to the Supreme Court. And they are requesting the Supreme Court order the offending states to allow their legislatures to appoint their presidential electors.
> *Dodging State Legislatures Was Dodgy*
> Breitbart was the first major outlet with the story, and breaks down the argument the Lone Star State is making.
> Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.​In their lawsuit, Texas claims “certain officials in the Defendant States” presented the COVID pandemic “as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in balloting.” As streiff at RedState noted, “there’s no pandemic escape hatch in the constitution.”
> ~[snip]~
> *Going to the Supreme Court…a Long Shot, Perhaps*
> Texas approached the Supreme Court directly, Breitbart reports, “because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.”
> Is the Supreme Court going to hear the case? Twitchy has collected the early reaction of legal types, and the consensus seems to be it’s a long shot the Supreme Court will hear the case, let alone rule in Texas’ favor. Several commentators note that the suit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, not the state’s solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who would be the go-to person for suits like this.
> 
> 
> Comment:
> The  Roberts court will either determine that it's none of Texas' business how other states do stuff or that the legistlatures were in session and aware of the changes and did not act, therefore they are implicitly the method determined by the legislature to be appropriate and so once again, buzz of Texas.
> This case doesn’t require evidence, it hangs upon the law being changed illegally, before the election.
> Every American voter in is being disenfranchised in this National Election by the States who were grossly negligent in their duties to conduct a free and fair election.
> All States, who abided by their State Election Rules, should join with Texas and take the scoundrels to court.
> 
> 
> 
> A.  Texas has no standing.
> 
> B.  Have we given up on the fraud angle?
Click to expand...

You need to read the pleadings, then go back to law school, then shove a 6 1/2 concrete dildo up your ass.


----------



## Crepitus

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doc7505 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Don’t Mess with Texas!
> Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures*
> *Texas goes directly to the Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to order these swing states with voting irregularities to allow their legislatures to appoint presidential electors.*​
> Don't Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures | The Stream
> 8 Dec 2020 ~~ By Al Perrotta
> ~[snip]~
> 
> Just before midnight, the State of Texas threw its massive weight into the election fraud fight. Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds their ad-hoc changes to election procedures were unconstitutional. And as a result, violated the rights of Texans and those in other states that followed the constitution. Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
> What’s more, Texas isn’t fiddling around with lower courts. They marched straight to the Supreme Court. And they are requesting the Supreme Court order the offending states to allow their legislatures to appoint their presidential electors.
> *Dodging State Legislatures Was Dodgy*
> Breitbart was the first major outlet with the story, and breaks down the argument the Lone Star State is making.
> Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.​In their lawsuit, Texas claims “certain officials in the Defendant States” presented the COVID pandemic “as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in balloting.” As streiff at RedState noted, “there’s no pandemic escape hatch in the constitution.”
> ~[snip]~
> *Going to the Supreme Court…a Long Shot, Perhaps*
> Texas approached the Supreme Court directly, Breitbart reports, “because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.”
> Is the Supreme Court going to hear the case? Twitchy has collected the early reaction of legal types, and the consensus seems to be it’s a long shot the Supreme Court will hear the case, let alone rule in Texas’ favor. Several commentators note that the suit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, not the state’s solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who would be the go-to person for suits like this.
> 
> 
> Comment:
> The  Roberts court will either determine that it's none of Texas' business how other states do stuff or that the legistlatures were in session and aware of the changes and did not act, therefore they are implicitly the method determined by the legislature to be appropriate and so once again, buzz of Texas.
> This case doesn’t require evidence, it hangs upon the law being changed illegally, before the election.
> Every American voter in is being disenfranchised in this National Election by the States who were grossly negligent in their duties to conduct a free and fair election.
> All States, who abided by their State Election Rules, should join with Texas and take the scoundrels to court.
> 
> 
> 
> A.  Texas has no standing.
> 
> B.  Have we given up on the fraud angle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the pleadings, then go back to law school, then shove a 6 1/2 concrete dildo up your ass.
Click to expand...

What is this fascination with 6.5 foot dildos and asses?

There something you wanna tell us?


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> You need to read the pleadings, then go back to law school, then shove a 6 1/2 concrete dildo up your ass.


....as if he doesnt do that already EVERY day.


----------



## Coyote

Kondor3 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
Click to expand...

My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> Jesus. Elections are a state matter. They are governed by THAT STATES laws and adjudicated by that states court system.
> 
> One state can not sue another state over how that state runs its elections.
> 
> This is beyond silly. I mean worthy of Rudy Toot Toot silly


That certainly hasn't been established yet, douchebag.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Coyote said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
Click to expand...

Yeah, EIGHT OTHER STATES JOINED IN just for some political theater.

Do you do stock advice?

If you do could you tell me too so I can invest the opposite way?

Thanks!


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's tons of it, you fucking moron.  You never see it because you only watch fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why, pray tell, has Trump's legal team refused to present such evidence in court......or even alleged that any fraud occured in any of their legal arguments?
> 
> There's a reason why the horseshit you're being fed from press conferences next to adult bookstores......and what Trump's attorneys are actually arguing in court have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They haven't been to court yet, numskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, Trump's legal team have been to court many, many times.
> 
> They've neither presented the 'evidence' nor ever alleged that fraud occurred as part of their legal argument.
> 
> You're being played.
Click to expand...

They have presented tons of evidence.  You need to quit watching fake news.  They are keeping you ignorant and looking like a fool.


----------



## Coyote

JimBowie1958 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, EIGHT OTHER STATES JOINED IN just for some political theater.
> 
> Do you do stock advice?
> 
> If you do could you tell me too so I can invest the opposite way?
> 
> Thanks!
Click to expand...


To reiterate.

It looks good.

It costs them NOTHING.  Even if they lose.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

JimH52 said:


> FUNNY SH*T!  Only a man facing multiple indictments would file such a frivolous law suit!
> 
> *Paxton, who is facing accusations of bribery and abuse of office*, is asking the Supreme Court to extend the December 14 deadline for the states' certification of presidential electors to allow for investigations into the alleged irregularities. He also wants the court to block the use of "unlawful election results without review and ratification by" the states' legislatures.


I now about that bullshit complaint directly from the judge who appointed the sitting retired judge on that case (Mark Rusch).

It's 100% technicality bullshit.  Going NOWHERE!!!


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's tons of it, you fucking moron.  You never see it because you only watch fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why, pray tell, has Trump's legal team refused to present such evidence in court......or even alleged that any fraud occured in any of their legal arguments?
> 
> There's a reason why the horseshit you're being fed from press conferences next to adult bookstores......and what Trump's attorneys are actually arguing in court have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They haven't been to court yet, numskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, Trump's legal team have been to court many, many times.
> 
> They've neither presented the 'evidence' nor ever alleged that fraud occurred as part of their legal argument.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have presented tons of evidence.  You need to quit watching fake news.  They are keeping you ignorant and looking like a fool.
Click to expand...


At a press conference, sure. But not in court. In court, they won't even ALLEGE that fraud ever occurred in their legal arguments.

Ask yourself why what they are telling in front of a garage door next to a porn shop is so very different from what they are presenting to a judge and arguing in court. 

You're being played.


----------



## Dogbiscuit

Kondor3 said:


> Dogbiscuit said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I wonder if any other states will climb aboard the Trump train ???
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone want to climb aboard a derailed wreck straddling the bridge and getting ready to fall into the Potomac?
Click to expand...

Because it actually ends up crashing in Joe's front yard.
Soon the SC will stoke the engine with some coal and toot toot !!,  the Kamala Caboose will get a true black face from the soot.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
Click to expand...

RUSSIA.

sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified. you want your concerns taken seriously but won't do the same for others. 

give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

AAAAANNNNNNDDDD!!!

Joining Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama:

Arkansas
Florida
Kentucky
Mississippi
South Carolina
South Dakota



This is just getting warmed up.

We need Tennessee, Missouri, North Carolina, Virginia (fat chance, SD can take their spot) and Oklahoma to join in, and the gang is all back together!!!!



I don't know what's funnier.  That these commie kuuunts continued to antagonize former confederate states for more than a century or that they have engaged in efforts to overthrow the very nation that forced the confederate states BACK into the union.


Roll Call:
Cowboys
Tigers
Yellow Hammers
Sand Lappers
Rice Birds
Gophers
Toothpicks
Corncrackers

Missing:
Hog Drovers
Tarheels
Border Ruffians

Gone, not coming with:
Goober Grabbers
Tobacco Worms


Confederate Soldier Nicknames

Another Name Source


----------



## Coyote

iceberg said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
Click to expand...


Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).

In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
Click to expand...

How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.

Russia red meat for left. Wheeee

It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.


----------



## The Original Tree

*10 States have joined The Texas Law Suit now and there will be more. The Texas Lawsuit has Constitutional Merit on several fronts.

The four states being sued held illegal and invalid elections and new elections will have to be held.*


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> At a press conference, sure. But not in court. In court, they won't even ALLEGE that fraud ever occurred in their legal arguments.
> 
> Ask yourself why what they are telling in front of a garage door next to a porn shop is so very different from what they are presenting to a judge and arguing in court.
> 
> You're being played.


Cheer up! In the next four years of Trump's presidency you can tell stories every day about the press conference by the porn shop. What fun, eh?


----------



## Kondor3

Dogbiscuit said:


> ...Because it actually ends up crashing in Joe's front yard. Soon the SC will stoke the engine with some coal and toot toot !!,  the Kamala Caboose will get a true black face from the soot.


Yeah... yeah... yeah... I'm sure they're just a-shakin' in their booties now... wake us up when that happens, eh?


----------



## Kondor3

iceberg said:


> ...RUSSIA. sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified. you want your concerns taken seriously but won't do the same for others. give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.


You're swingin' after the bell, Sparky... it's over.


----------



## iceberg

Kondor3 said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...RUSSIA. sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified. you want your concerns taken seriously but won't do the same for others. give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> 
> 
> You're swingin' after the bell, Sparky... it's over.
Click to expand...

I like you. 

you make me laff.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

The Original Tree said:


> *10 States have joined The Texas Law Suit now and there will be more. The Texas Lawsuit has Constitutional Merit on several fronts.
> 
> The four states being sued held illegal and invalid elections and new elections will have to be held.*


Wait, who is the 10th?

Tell me the Hog Drovers joined in too?  Did they?


----------



## The Original Tree

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *10 States have joined The Texas Law Suit now and there will be more. The Texas Lawsuit has Constitutional Merit on several fronts.
> 
> The four states being sued held illegal and invalid elections and new elections will have to be held.*
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, who is the 10th?
> 
> Tell me the Hog Drovers joined in too?  Did they?
Click to expand...

*Missouri just joined the Texas Lawsuit.  

This is going to go all the way to SCOTUS because Texas will win every single case and The Democrats will have to appeal to SCOTUS and roll the dice.

My guess is that they will have to hold new elections in the 4 states.*


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

The Original Tree said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *10 States have joined The Texas Law Suit now and there will be more. The Texas Lawsuit has Constitutional Merit on several fronts.
> 
> The four states being sued held illegal and invalid elections and new elections will have to be held.*
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, who is the 10th?
> 
> Tell me the Hog Drovers joined in too?  Did they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Missouri just joined the Texas Lawsuit.
> 
> This is going to go all the way to SCOTUS because Texas will win every single case and The Democrats will have to appeal to SCOTUS and roll the dice.
> 
> My guess is that they will have to hold new elections in the 4 states.*
Click to expand...

THE RUFFIANS ARE IN THIS BITCH!!!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

...c'mon, Hog Drovers!!!

Where's TNHarley?  

Harley!!!!  Get your Hog Drovin' AG to join the damn suit!!!


----------



## meaner gene

The Original Tree said:


> *10 States have joined The Texas Law Suit now and there will be more. The Texas Lawsuit has Constitutional Merit on several fronts.
> 
> The four states being sued held illegal and invalid elections and new elections will have to be held.*


 I propose they hold those elections on January 20th


----------



## protectionist

The 4 states have been given a deadline by the US Supreme Court > 3:00 PM Eastern time, to respond to the the lawsuit. Did somebody say the US Supreme would not take the case ? They already have.

This is a huge win for the Trump challenge, and very possibly a game changer, but things still are yet to be determined.  Should be a very interesting day on Friday.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Lesh said:


> Jesus. Elections are a state matter. They are governed by THAT STATES laws and adjudicated by that states court system.
> 
> One state can not sue another state over how that state runs its elections.
> 
> This is beyond silly. I mean worthy of Rudy Toot Toot silly


This is a case of you simply not keeping up with the issue. It's not a matter so much of how a state run's it's elections. It's more a case of states unilaterally changing voting rules without going through a legislative
body, as the Constitution requires. 

As a matter of fact, that's the basis of the Texas intervention. Voting laws in Georgia, Wisconsin, etc,
have been enacted illegally disenfranchising voters.


----------



## iceberg

States ordered to respond by Thursday. 

So much for dismissal.


----------



## Doc7505

BULLDOG said:


> Thunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> SEVEN states have now joined Texas lawsuit, arguing that the Equal Protection Clause has been violated in this election from state-to-state.
> 
> @Louisiana
> , Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those floundering states trying to climb into that last little lifeboat. They don't even care that it has a huge hole in it.
Click to expand...


~~~~~~
*SCOTUS has voted 6-3 to hear the Texas lawsuit.*
Washington Pundit © on Twitter: "The 6-3 SCOTUS RULING came to us as personal communication from a trusted source. Since we could not find an official declaration, we removed the post. Praying it will come to fruition." / Twitter

Washington Pundit ©
@TWPundit
·
9m


----------



## candycorn

Well,,,

The suit, of course, is hilarious....it's bullshit.

But it's good to "get it out of our system" that one state can sue another state because they don't like the way the state voted.  

Texas changed its rules as well:









						How Texas has made it easier and harder for people to vote in the pandemic
					

Voting rights groups say last-minute changes to the voting process in Texas have created confusion. Gov. Greg Abbott’s office says he has expanded accessibility by allowing voters to submit mail-in ballots in person before Election Day.




					www.texastribune.org
				




So, again, this suit is crap.  If a blue state wanted to lower itself to Texas's level...they could do that and rid ourselves of their pesky electoral votes too.  

Its just another sad footnote to the blob's administration...he's going out like the spoiled loser that he's always been.


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's tons of it, you fucking moron.  You never see it because you only watch fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why, pray tell, has Trump's legal team refused to present such evidence in court......or even alleged that any fraud occured in any of their legal arguments?
> 
> There's a reason why the horseshit you're being fed from press conferences next to adult bookstores......and what Trump's attorneys are actually arguing in court have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They haven't been to court yet, numskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, Trump's legal team have been to court many, many times.
> 
> They've neither presented the 'evidence' nor ever alleged that fraud occurred as part of their legal argument.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have presented tons of evidence.  You need to quit watching fake news.  They are keeping you ignorant and looking like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At a press conference, sure. But not in court. In court, they won't even ALLEGE that fraud ever occurred in their legal arguments.
> 
> Ask yourself why what they are telling in front of a garage door next to a porn shop is so very different from what they are presenting to a judge and arguing in court.
> 
> You're being played.
Click to expand...

Your talking point has already been debunked about 100 times.


----------



## LoneLaugher

This will go nowhere. 

Those who cheer this kind of desperate legal ploy to try and overturn an election ought to take a long, hard look at themselves.


----------



## Snouter

Thank you Texas for giving the USA a good chance to overcome the evil of the democrats in their attempt steal the election!


----------



## iceberg

LoneLaugher said:


> This will go nowhere.
> 
> Those who cheer this kind of desperate legal ploy to try and overturn an election ought to take a long, hard look at themselves.


those who make these moves necessary should certainly do the same.


----------



## iceberg

candycorn said:


> Well,,,
> 
> The suit, of course, is hilarious....it's bullshit.
> 
> But it's good to "get it out of our system" that one state can sue another state because they don't like the way the state voted.
> 
> Texas changed its rules as well:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Texas has made it easier and harder for people to vote in the pandemic
> 
> 
> Voting rights groups say last-minute changes to the voting process in Texas have created confusion. Gov. Greg Abbott’s office says he has expanded accessibility by allowing voters to submit mail-in ballots in person before Election Day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, again, this suit is crap.  If a blue state wanted to lower itself to Texas's level...they could do that and rid ourselves of their pesky electoral votes too.
> 
> Its just another sad footnote to the blob's administration...he's going out like the spoiled loser that he's always been.


Then do it or shut up.


----------



## Coyote

iceberg said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
Click to expand...

...oh not this again.


----------



## bripat9643

The Original Tree said:


> *10 States have joined The Texas Law Suit now and there will be more. The Texas Lawsuit has Constitutional Merit on several fronts.
> 
> The four states being sued held illegal and invalid elections and new elections will have to be held.*


They also committed voter fraud on a massive scale.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
Click to expand...

stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are. 

your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's tons of it, you fucking moron.  You never see it because you only watch fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why, pray tell, has Trump's legal team refused to present such evidence in court......or even alleged that any fraud occured in any of their legal arguments?
> 
> There's a reason why the horseshit you're being fed from press conferences next to adult bookstores......and what Trump's attorneys are actually arguing in court have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They haven't been to court yet, numskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, Trump's legal team have been to court many, many times.
> 
> They've neither presented the 'evidence' nor ever alleged that fraud occurred as part of their legal argument.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have presented tons of evidence.  You need to quit watching fake news.  They are keeping you ignorant and looking like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At a press conference, sure. But not in court. In court, they won't even ALLEGE that fraud ever occurred in their legal arguments.
> 
> Ask yourself why what they are telling in front of a garage door next to a porn shop is so very different from what they are presenting to a judge and arguing in court.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talking point has already been debunked about 100 times.
Click to expand...


Except of course, that it hasn't been 'debunked' even once.

Its been over a month. Trump's team have filed numerous legal challenges and been to court (digitally or otherwise) numerous times. The have never argued fraud occurred. They have never present your 'smoking guns' in court. 

You've been played


----------



## bripat9643

LoneLaugher said:


> This will go nowhere.
> 
> Those who cheer this kind of desperate legal ploy to try and overturn an election ought to take a long, hard look at themselves.


I think the criminals conducting voter fraud are the ones who should be looking at themselves.  Then they should be locked up.


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *10 States have joined The Texas Law Suit now and there will be more. The Texas Lawsuit has Constitutional Merit on several fronts.
> 
> The four states being sued held illegal and invalid elections and new elections will have to be held.*
> 
> 
> 
> They also committed voter fraud on a massive scale.
Click to expand...


Nope. There's no evidence of voter fraud on any scale large enough to change the outcome of the election.

The Attorney General has already confirmed as much.


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's tons of it, you fucking moron.  You never see it because you only watch fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why, pray tell, has Trump's legal team refused to present such evidence in court......or even alleged that any fraud occured in any of their legal arguments?
> 
> There's a reason why the horseshit you're being fed from press conferences next to adult bookstores......and what Trump's attorneys are actually arguing in court have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They haven't been to court yet, numskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, Trump's legal team have been to court many, many times.
> 
> They've neither presented the 'evidence' nor ever alleged that fraud occurred as part of their legal argument.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have presented tons of evidence.  You need to quit watching fake news.  They are keeping you ignorant and looking like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At a press conference, sure. But not in court. In court, they won't even ALLEGE that fraud ever occurred in their legal arguments.
> 
> Ask yourself why what they are telling in front of a garage door next to a porn shop is so very different from what they are presenting to a judge and arguing in court.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talking point has already been debunked about 100 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course, that it hasn't been 'debunked' even once.
> 
> Its been over a month. Trump's team have filed numerous legal challenges and been to court (digitally or otherwise) numerous times. The have never argued fraud occurred. They have never present your 'smoking guns' in court.
> 
> You've been played
Click to expand...

debunked talking point.  Try something new for a change.


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will go nowhere.
> 
> Those who cheer this kind of desperate legal ploy to try and overturn an election ought to take a long, hard look at themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the criminals conducting voter fraud are the ones who should be looking at themselves.  Then they should be locked up.
Click to expand...


Putting people in jail requires the 'evidence' be presented in court. And Trump's team has avoided doing that like the plague for a reason:

The 'evidence' doesn't hold up.


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *10 States have joined The Texas Law Suit now and there will be more. The Texas Lawsuit has Constitutional Merit on several fronts.
> 
> The four states being sued held illegal and invalid elections and new elections will have to be held.*
> 
> 
> 
> They also committed voter fraud on a massive scale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. There's no evidence of voter fraud on any scale large enough to change the outcome of the election.
> 
> The Attorney General has already confirmed as much.
Click to expand...

The votes counted in GA after they kicked out all the poll workers can easily overturn that election.


----------



## candycorn

iceberg said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well,,,
> 
> The suit, of course, is hilarious....it's bullshit.
> 
> But it's good to "get it out of our system" that one state can sue another state because they don't like the way the state voted.
> 
> Texas changed its rules as well:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Texas has made it easier and harder for people to vote in the pandemic
> 
> 
> Voting rights groups say last-minute changes to the voting process in Texas have created confusion. Gov. Greg Abbott’s office says he has expanded accessibility by allowing voters to submit mail-in ballots in person before Election Day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, again, this suit is crap.  If a blue state wanted to lower itself to Texas's level...they could do that and rid ourselves of their pesky electoral votes too.
> 
> Its just another sad footnote to the blob's administration...he's going out like the spoiled loser that he's always been.
> 
> 
> 
> Then do it or shut up.
Click to expand...


Nah, I'll let the Trump supreme court explain it to you that the suit is bullshit.  You'll still double down on how THEY are somehow illegitimate, of course....but it will be more satisfying seeing your blob decapitated by his last hope.  

Enjoy.


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will go nowhere.
> 
> Those who cheer this kind of desperate legal ploy to try and overturn an election ought to take a long, hard look at themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the criminals conducting voter fraud are the ones who should be looking at themselves.  Then they should be locked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putting people in jail requires the 'evidence' be presented in court. And Trump's team has avoided doing that like the plague for a reason:
> 
> The 'evidence' doesn't hold up.
Click to expand...

If this swindle is allowed to stand, then the evidence will disappear down a black hole.   The Dims have already been trying to wipe the evidence clean.


----------



## iceberg

candycorn said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well,,,
> 
> The suit, of course, is hilarious....it's bullshit.
> 
> But it's good to "get it out of our system" that one state can sue another state because they don't like the way the state voted.
> 
> Texas changed its rules as well:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Texas has made it easier and harder for people to vote in the pandemic
> 
> 
> Voting rights groups say last-minute changes to the voting process in Texas have created confusion. Gov. Greg Abbott’s office says he has expanded accessibility by allowing voters to submit mail-in ballots in person before Election Day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, again, this suit is crap.  If a blue state wanted to lower itself to Texas's level...they could do that and rid ourselves of their pesky electoral votes too.
> 
> Its just another sad footnote to the blob's administration...he's going out like the spoiled loser that he's always been.
> 
> 
> 
> Then do it or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, I'll let the Trump supreme court explain it to you that the suit is bullshit.  You'll still double down on how THEY are somehow illegitimate, of course....but it will be more satisfying seeing your blob decapitated by his last hope.
> 
> Enjoy.
Click to expand...

Funny you think you know more than the SCOTUS.  

you make me laf, but I don't like you.


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's tons of it, you fucking moron.  You never see it because you only watch fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why, pray tell, has Trump's legal team refused to present such evidence in court......or even alleged that any fraud occured in any of their legal arguments?
> 
> There's a reason why the horseshit you're being fed from press conferences next to adult bookstores......and what Trump's attorneys are actually arguing in court have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They haven't been to court yet, numskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, Trump's legal team have been to court many, many times.
> 
> They've neither presented the 'evidence' nor ever alleged that fraud occurred as part of their legal argument.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have presented tons of evidence.  You need to quit watching fake news.  They are keeping you ignorant and looking like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At a press conference, sure. But not in court. In court, they won't even ALLEGE that fraud ever occurred in their legal arguments.
> 
> Ask yourself why what they are telling in front of a garage door next to a porn shop is so very different from what they are presenting to a judge and arguing in court.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talking point has already been debunked about 100 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course, that it hasn't been 'debunked' even once.
> 
> Its been over a month. Trump's team have filed numerous legal challenges and been to court (digitally or otherwise) numerous times. The have never argued fraud occurred. They have never present your 'smoking guns' in court.
> 
> You've been played
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> debunked talking point.  Try something new for a change.
Click to expand...


Never debunked once.  It wrecks your conspiracy, so you ignore it.

Trump's legal team has never argued fraud every occurred in any of their legal arguments. When asked by judges if they are moving foward with fraud allegations,* they have said that fraud is not part of their argument.*

None of the 'smoking guns' have ever been presented in court by Trump's team. And the reason is simple: they collapse under the slightest scrutiny. Let alone the strict scrutiny standard that Trump's team would be held to under Rule 9b of Federal Civil Procedure when adjudicating fraud allegations.

And 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is a far higher standard than strict scrutiny. Your imprisonment fantasies are just that. Fantasies.


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's tons of it, you fucking moron.  You never see it because you only watch fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why, pray tell, has Trump's legal team refused to present such evidence in court......or even alleged that any fraud occured in any of their legal arguments?
> 
> There's a reason why the horseshit you're being fed from press conferences next to adult bookstores......and what Trump's attorneys are actually arguing in court have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They haven't been to court yet, numskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, Trump's legal team have been to court many, many times.
> 
> They've neither presented the 'evidence' nor ever alleged that fraud occurred as part of their legal argument.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have presented tons of evidence.  You need to quit watching fake news.  They are keeping you ignorant and looking like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At a press conference, sure. But not in court. In court, they won't even ALLEGE that fraud ever occurred in their legal arguments.
> 
> Ask yourself why what they are telling in front of a garage door next to a porn shop is so very different from what they are presenting to a judge and arguing in court.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talking point has already been debunked about 100 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course, that it hasn't been 'debunked' even once.
> 
> Its been over a month. Trump's team have filed numerous legal challenges and been to court (digitally or otherwise) numerous times. The have never argued fraud occurred. They have never present your 'smoking guns' in court.
> 
> You've been played
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> debunked talking point.  Try something new for a change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never debunked once.  It wrecks your conspiracy, so you ignore it.
> 
> Trump's legal team has never argued fraud every occurred in any of their legal arguments. When asked by judges if they are moving foward with fraud allegations, they have said that fraud is not part of their argument.
> 
> None of the 'smoking guns' have ever been presented in court by Trump's team. And the reason is simple: they collapse under the slightest scrutiny. Let alone the strict scrutiny standard that Trump's team would be held to under Rule 9b of Federal Civil Procedure when adjudicating fraud allegations.
> 
> And 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is a far higher staneard than strict scrutiny. Your imprisonment fantasies are just that. Fantasies.
Click to expand...

<YAWN!>


----------



## Coyote

iceberg said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And making up Russia and forging evidence and spying did what for the good of the country? At least the right IS going 5hrough the courts vs the dems route.
Click to expand...


The right is making up evidence not going through the courts.


----------



## candycorn

iceberg said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well,,,
> 
> The suit, of course, is hilarious....it's bullshit.
> 
> But it's good to "get it out of our system" that one state can sue another state because they don't like the way the state voted.
> 
> Texas changed its rules as well:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Texas has made it easier and harder for people to vote in the pandemic
> 
> 
> Voting rights groups say last-minute changes to the voting process in Texas have created confusion. Gov. Greg Abbott’s office says he has expanded accessibility by allowing voters to submit mail-in ballots in person before Election Day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, again, this suit is crap.  If a blue state wanted to lower itself to Texas's level...they could do that and rid ourselves of their pesky electoral votes too.
> 
> Its just another sad footnote to the blob's administration...he's going out like the spoiled loser that he's always been.
> 
> 
> 
> Then do it or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, I'll let the Trump supreme court explain it to you that the suit is bullshit.  You'll still double down on how THEY are somehow illegitimate, of course....but it will be more satisfying seeing your blob decapitated by his last hope.
> 
> Enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny you think you know more than the SCOTUS.
> 
> you make me lafm but I don't like you.
Click to expand...


Lafm?  

I don't know more than them.  I just know more than you.  As does 98% of the population.


----------



## bripat9643

Coyote said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And making up Russia and forging evidence and spying did what for the good of the country? At least the right IS going 5hrough the courts vs the dems route.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right is making up evidence not going through the courts.
Click to expand...

What evidence did they "make up," the video of GA poll workers counting votes after they kicked out all the observers?


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And making up Russia and forging evidence and spying did what for the good of the country? At least the right IS going 5hrough the courts vs the dems route.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right is making up evidence not going through the courts.
Click to expand...

So the SCOTUS is not one of our courts? 

Should they riot in the streets instead til they get their way? Why are you for the chaos method but cry foul at going through our court system?


----------



## BlindBoo

A tribute to the Hail Mary.


----------



## RealDave

Texans n


Doc7505 said:


> *Don’t Mess with Texas!
> Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures*
> *Texas goes directly to the Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to order these swing states with voting irregularities to allow their legislatures to appoint presidential electors.*​
> Don't Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures | The Stream
> 8 Dec 2020 ~~ By Al Perrotta
> ~[snip]~
> 
> Just before midnight, the State of Texas threw its massive weight into the election fraud fight. Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds their ad-hoc changes to election procedures were unconstitutional. And as a result, violated the rights of Texans and those in other states that followed the constitution. Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
> What’s more, Texas isn’t fiddling around with lower courts. They marched straight to the Supreme Court. And they are requesting the Supreme Court order the offending states to allow their legislatures to appoint their presidential electors.
> *Dodging State Legislatures Was Dodgy*
> Breitbart was the first major outlet with the story, and breaks down the argument the Lone Star State is making.
> Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.​In their lawsuit, Texas claims “certain officials in the Defendant States” presented the COVID pandemic “as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in balloting.” As streiff at RedState noted, “there’s no pandemic escape hatch in the constitution.”
> ~[snip]~
> *Going to the Supreme Court…a Long Shot, Perhaps*
> Texas approached the Supreme Court directly, Breitbart reports, “because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.”
> Is the Supreme Court going to hear the case? Twitchy has collected the early reaction of legal types, and the consensus seems to be it’s a long shot the Supreme Court will hear the case, let alone rule in Texas’ favor. Several commentators note that the suit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, not the state’s solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who would be the go-to person for suits like this.
> 
> 
> Comment:
> The  Roberts court will either determine that it's none of Texas' business how other states do stuff or that the legistlatures were in session and aware of the changes and did not act, therefore they are implicitly the method determined by the legislature to be appropriate and so once again, buzz of Texas.
> This case doesn’t require evidence, it hangs upon the law being changed illegally, before the election.
> Every American voter in is being disenfranchised in this National Election by the States who were grossly negligent in their duties to conduct a free and fair election.
> All States, who abided by their State Election Rules, should join with Texas and take the scoundrels to court.


Texans need to mind their own fucking business.  

According to you assfucks, if a hurricane struck a state on election day, no one could vote.   Just cause a blackout over several states.  Too bad for them.


----------



## Coyote

iceberg said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

You just never stop.


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will go nowhere.
> 
> Those who cheer this kind of desperate legal ploy to try and overturn an election ought to take a long, hard look at themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the criminals conducting voter fraud are the ones who should be looking at themselves.  Then they should be locked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putting people in jail requires the 'evidence' be presented in court. And Trump's team has avoided doing that like the plague for a reason:
> 
> The 'evidence' doesn't hold up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If this swindle is allowed to stand, then the evidence will disappear down a black hole.   The Dims have already been trying to wipe the evidence clean.
Click to expand...


On the contrary, your 'evidence' is being exposed to the light of day. And it doesn't hold up.

Take.....the claims that dominion voting machines changed votes. There's nothing to back the claim up. Worse, the state of Georgia has done hand recounts of the physical ballots. If the voting machines were changing votes, there would be an enormous disparity between the physical ballots and the electronic tallies.

*Instead, the count of physical ballots matched the electronic tallies with way more than 99% accuracy. *

Obliterating your conspiracy.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
Click to expand...

Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.


----------



## progressive hunter

Coyote said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
Click to expand...

we wish you would,,,


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's tons of it, you fucking moron.  You never see it because you only watch fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why, pray tell, has Trump's legal team refused to present such evidence in court......or even alleged that any fraud occured in any of their legal arguments?
> 
> There's a reason why the horseshit you're being fed from press conferences next to adult bookstores......and what Trump's attorneys are actually arguing in court have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They haven't been to court yet, numskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, Trump's legal team have been to court many, many times.
> 
> They've neither presented the 'evidence' nor ever alleged that fraud occurred as part of their legal argument.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have presented tons of evidence.  You need to quit watching fake news.  They are keeping you ignorant and looking like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At a press conference, sure. But not in court. In court, they won't even ALLEGE that fraud ever occurred in their legal arguments.
> 
> Ask yourself why what they are telling in front of a garage door next to a porn shop is so very different from what they are presenting to a judge and arguing in court.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talking point has already been debunked about 100 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course, that it hasn't been 'debunked' even once.
> 
> Its been over a month. Trump's team have filed numerous legal challenges and been to court (digitally or otherwise) numerous times. The have never argued fraud occurred. They have never present your 'smoking guns' in court.
> 
> You've been played
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> debunked talking point.  Try something new for a change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never debunked once.  It wrecks your conspiracy, so you ignore it.
> 
> Trump's legal team has never argued fraud every occurred in any of their legal arguments. When asked by judges if they are moving foward with fraud allegations, they have said that fraud is not part of their argument.
> 
> None of the 'smoking guns' have ever been presented in court by Trump's team. And the reason is simple: they collapse under the slightest scrutiny. Let alone the strict scrutiny standard that Trump's team would be held to under Rule 9b of Federal Civil Procedure when adjudicating fraud allegations.
> 
> And 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is a far higher staneard than strict scrutiny. Your imprisonment fantasies are just that. Fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <YAWN!>
Click to expand...


Yawn all you like. The fact remains that Trump's team has never even alleged fraud occured in any of their legal arguments in court.

Nor have they presented the 'evidence' you claim to cite.

You can't get around that. All you can do is ignore it. 

The courts didn't.


----------



## Coyote

iceberg said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
Click to expand...

You non stop attack and demonize the left.

Look to your own.


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's tons of it, you fucking moron.  You never see it because you only watch fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why, pray tell, has Trump's legal team refused to present such evidence in court......or even alleged that any fraud occured in any of their legal arguments?
> 
> There's a reason why the horseshit you're being fed from press conferences next to adult bookstores......and what Trump's attorneys are actually arguing in court have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They haven't been to court yet, numskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, Trump's legal team have been to court many, many times.
> 
> They've neither presented the 'evidence' nor ever alleged that fraud occurred as part of their legal argument.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have presented tons of evidence.  You need to quit watching fake news.  They are keeping you ignorant and looking like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At a press conference, sure. But not in court. In court, they won't even ALLEGE that fraud ever occurred in their legal arguments.
> 
> Ask yourself why what they are telling in front of a garage door next to a porn shop is so very different from what they are presenting to a judge and arguing in court.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talking point has already been debunked about 100 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course, that it hasn't been 'debunked' even once.
> 
> Its been over a month. Trump's team have filed numerous legal challenges and been to court (digitally or otherwise) numerous times. The have never argued fraud occurred. They have never present your 'smoking guns' in court.
> 
> You've been played
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> debunked talking point.  Try something new for a change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never debunked once.  It wrecks your conspiracy, so you ignore it.
> 
> Trump's legal team has never argued fraud every occurred in any of their legal arguments. When asked by judges if they are moving foward with fraud allegations, they have said that fraud is not part of their argument.
> 
> None of the 'smoking guns' have ever been presented in court by Trump's team. And the reason is simple: they collapse under the slightest scrutiny. Let alone the strict scrutiny standard that Trump's team would be held to under Rule 9b of Federal Civil Procedure when adjudicating fraud allegations.
> 
> And 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is a far higher staneard than strict scrutiny. Your imprisonment fantasies are just that. Fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <YAWN!>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn all you like. The fact remains that Trump's team has never even alleged fraud occured in any of their legal arguments in court.
> 
> Nor have they presented the 'evidence' you claim to cite.
> 
> You can't get around that. All you can do is ignore it.
> 
> The courts didn't.
Click to expand...

Another Dim talking point.

<YAWN!>


----------



## Billiejeens

Dr Grump said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom loving Americans have been watching the Globalists and Marxists take over this country for the last 40 years and felt dispair that no one would do anything about it.
> 
> That is until TRUMP came along and reversed it.
> 
> Now stupid ass Dimbocraps a Globalist Neocons think that they can simply cheat and steal it back?
> 
> No fucking way, morons.
> 
> We the People will do EVERYTHING we can up to and including secession, revolt and civil war to prevent this disgrace of a piece of shyte from ever becoming President.
> 
> END OF STORY.
> 
> Joe  Beijing Biden was NOT elected in an honest election; TRUMP was re-elected, and he will have a second term or we will have civil war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh fuck off with your conspiracy theories. What Marxists? What globalists? What is their end game?
> Haven't you got a life to live. Seriously...
> 
> Please, grab your nearest firearm, go to your nearest military base and start shooting. Stop talking, start doing. The end result will be one less fascist retard polluting this Earth. Christ, fuckwits like you ARE the problem. YOU make the world a shittier place. Dropkick...
Click to expand...




bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Texas has to do is get their AG or their SC to pass it along to the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't just pass things. There has to be constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are. Find the thread and read it. Its on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no constitutional issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Beyond equal protection and the fact state election laws were violated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States in question have not found that their state election laws were violated.
> 
> Nor has any of the relevant State Legislatures. Nor has the Supreme Court.
> 
> So what violation are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> State election laws are public record. I suggest you go read them. Then go look at changes made by election officials and the judiciary. This isn't rocket science. Setting to rules for elections belongs solely to the legislature. States have in fact challenged this. In PA one judge did rule it unconstitutional and it was punted over 'timeliness' not constitutionality. There is an open case in WI challenging the same thing. It was also a part of Powell's lawsuits. You don't know about because the liberal media ignored it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have. I'm asking you which court has determined that there was a violation of state election laws. And you were unable to provide any.
> 
> Not the State courts. Not the State Legislatures. Not the election officials. Not the Supreme Court.
> 
> *No one has found a violation. *So what violation are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of them, yet, obviously, you fucking douchebag.  Once a court finds the state broke the law, then it's electoral votes get awarded to Trump and all you lying weasels start crying,.
Click to expand...


That's not true


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
Click to expand...

I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, NAZIS, racists or the like. 

I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court. 

I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying yet excuse the rioters. 

We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's tons of it, you fucking moron.  You never see it because you only watch fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why, pray tell, has Trump's legal team refused to present such evidence in court......or even alleged that any fraud occured in any of their legal arguments?
> 
> There's a reason why the horseshit you're being fed from press conferences next to adult bookstores......and what Trump's attorneys are actually arguing in court have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They haven't been to court yet, numskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, Trump's legal team have been to court many, many times.
> 
> They've neither presented the 'evidence' nor ever alleged that fraud occurred as part of their legal argument.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have presented tons of evidence.  You need to quit watching fake news.  They are keeping you ignorant and looking like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At a press conference, sure. But not in court. In court, they won't even ALLEGE that fraud ever occurred in their legal arguments.
> 
> Ask yourself why what they are telling in front of a garage door next to a porn shop is so very different from what they are presenting to a judge and arguing in court.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talking point has already been debunked about 100 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course, that it hasn't been 'debunked' even once.
> 
> Its been over a month. Trump's team have filed numerous legal challenges and been to court (digitally or otherwise) numerous times. The have never argued fraud occurred. They have never present your 'smoking guns' in court.
> 
> You've been played
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> debunked talking point.  Try something new for a change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never debunked once.  It wrecks your conspiracy, so you ignore it.
> 
> Trump's legal team has never argued fraud every occurred in any of their legal arguments. When asked by judges if they are moving foward with fraud allegations, they have said that fraud is not part of their argument.
> 
> None of the 'smoking guns' have ever been presented in court by Trump's team. And the reason is simple: they collapse under the slightest scrutiny. Let alone the strict scrutiny standard that Trump's team would be held to under Rule 9b of Federal Civil Procedure when adjudicating fraud allegations.
> 
> And 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is a far higher staneard than strict scrutiny. Your imprisonment fantasies are just that. Fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <YAWN!>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn all you like. The fact remains that Trump's team has never even alleged fraud occured in any of their legal arguments in court.
> 
> Nor have they presented the 'evidence' you claim to cite.
> 
> You can't get around that. All you can do is ignore it.
> 
> The courts didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another Dim talking point.
> 
> <YAWN!>
Click to expand...


Another enormous hole in your silly conspiracy that you ignore and try and pretend doesn't exist.

A rational person would ask why Trump's legal team neither presented the 'evidence' in court, nor have ever argued fraud ever occurred in any of their legal arguments.

You ignore it all. So much for your 'evidence'.


----------



## Skylar

iceberg said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, NAZIS, racists or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying yet excuse the rioters.
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
Click to expand...


Not really my vibe either.


----------



## iceberg

Skylar said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, NAZIS, racists or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying yet excuse the rioters.
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really my vibe either.
Click to expand...

Who are you again?


----------



## Skylar

iceberg said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, NAZIS, racists or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying yet excuse the rioters.
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really my vibe either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you again?
Click to expand...


Just a soul sharing the facts with a very unwilling audience.


----------



## iceberg

Skylar said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, NAZIS, racists or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying yet excuse the rioters.
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really my vibe either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a soul sharing the facts with a very unwilling audience.
Click to expand...

You sound like a duck farting on a frozen pond.


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's tons of it, you fucking moron.  You never see it because you only watch fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why, pray tell, has Trump's legal team refused to present such evidence in court......or even alleged that any fraud occured in any of their legal arguments?
> 
> There's a reason why the horseshit you're being fed from press conferences next to adult bookstores......and what Trump's attorneys are actually arguing in court have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They haven't been to court yet, numskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, Trump's legal team have been to court many, many times.
> 
> They've neither presented the 'evidence' nor ever alleged that fraud occurred as part of their legal argument.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have presented tons of evidence.  You need to quit watching fake news.  They are keeping you ignorant and looking like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At a press conference, sure. But not in court. In court, they won't even ALLEGE that fraud ever occurred in their legal arguments.
> 
> Ask yourself why what they are telling in front of a garage door next to a porn shop is so very different from what they are presenting to a judge and arguing in court.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talking point has already been debunked about 100 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course, that it hasn't been 'debunked' even once.
> 
> Its been over a month. Trump's team have filed numerous legal challenges and been to court (digitally or otherwise) numerous times. The have never argued fraud occurred. They have never present your 'smoking guns' in court.
> 
> You've been played
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> debunked talking point.  Try something new for a change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never debunked once.  It wrecks your conspiracy, so you ignore it.
> 
> Trump's legal team has never argued fraud every occurred in any of their legal arguments. When asked by judges if they are moving foward with fraud allegations, they have said that fraud is not part of their argument.
> 
> None of the 'smoking guns' have ever been presented in court by Trump's team. And the reason is simple: they collapse under the slightest scrutiny. Let alone the strict scrutiny standard that Trump's team would be held to under Rule 9b of Federal Civil Procedure when adjudicating fraud allegations.
> 
> And 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is a far higher staneard than strict scrutiny. Your imprisonment fantasies are just that. Fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <YAWN!>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn all you like. The fact remains that Trump's team has never even alleged fraud occured in any of their legal arguments in court.
> 
> Nor have they presented the 'evidence' you claim to cite.
> 
> You can't get around that. All you can do is ignore it.
> 
> The courts didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another Dim talking point.
> 
> <YAWN!>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another enormous hole in your silly conspiracy that you ignore and try and pretend doesn't exist.
> 
> A rational person would ask why Trump's legal team neither presented the 'evidence' in court, nor have ever argued fraud ever occurred in any of their legal arguments.
> 
> You ignore it all. So much for your 'evidence'.
Click to expand...

More Dim talking points, already debunked.

<YAWN!>


----------



## Coyote

iceberg said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
Click to expand...


And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.

Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.

I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
Click to expand...

Here we go again. Coyote gets all binary and has extreme reactions because I said she was binary and had extreme reactions.

How could I have been so wrong?

Apeshit... 

I like you. 
You make me laff.


----------



## iceberg

And far from going apeshit. I'm just trying to figure out how to get a ducks ass off a frozen pond.

Farting didn't work.


----------



## The Original Tree

bripat9643 said:


> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *10 States have joined The Texas Law Suit now and there will be more. The Texas Lawsuit has Constitutional Merit on several fronts.
> 
> The four states being sued held illegal and invalid elections and new elections will have to be held.*
> 
> 
> 
> They also committed voter fraud on a massive scale.
Click to expand...

Yes they did.  I hope that people go to jail for it, but the only justice they will probably see is Hell on Judgment Day.


----------



## skye

I love Texas!


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's tons of it, you fucking moron.  You never see it because you only watch fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why, pray tell, has Trump's legal team refused to present such evidence in court......or even alleged that any fraud occured in any of their legal arguments?
> 
> There's a reason why the horseshit you're being fed from press conferences next to adult bookstores......and what Trump's attorneys are actually arguing in court have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They haven't been to court yet, numskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, Trump's legal team have been to court many, many times.
> 
> They've neither presented the 'evidence' nor ever alleged that fraud occurred as part of their legal argument.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have presented tons of evidence.  You need to quit watching fake news.  They are keeping you ignorant and looking like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At a press conference, sure. But not in court. In court, they won't even ALLEGE that fraud ever occurred in their legal arguments.
> 
> Ask yourself why what they are telling in front of a garage door next to a porn shop is so very different from what they are presenting to a judge and arguing in court.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talking point has already been debunked about 100 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course, that it hasn't been 'debunked' even once.
> 
> Its been over a month. Trump's team have filed numerous legal challenges and been to court (digitally or otherwise) numerous times. The have never argued fraud occurred. They have never present your 'smoking guns' in court.
> 
> You've been played
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> debunked talking point.  Try something new for a change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never debunked once.  It wrecks your conspiracy, so you ignore it.
> 
> Trump's legal team has never argued fraud every occurred in any of their legal arguments. When asked by judges if they are moving foward with fraud allegations, they have said that fraud is not part of their argument.
> 
> None of the 'smoking guns' have ever been presented in court by Trump's team. And the reason is simple: they collapse under the slightest scrutiny. Let alone the strict scrutiny standard that Trump's team would be held to under Rule 9b of Federal Civil Procedure when adjudicating fraud allegations.
> 
> And 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is a far higher staneard than strict scrutiny. Your imprisonment fantasies are just that. Fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <YAWN!>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn all you like. The fact remains that Trump's team has never even alleged fraud occured in any of their legal arguments in court.
> 
> Nor have they presented the 'evidence' you claim to cite.
> 
> You can't get around that. All you can do is ignore it.
> 
> The courts didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another Dim talking point.
> 
> <YAWN!>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another enormous hole in your silly conspiracy that you ignore and try and pretend doesn't exist.
> 
> A rational person would ask why Trump's legal team neither presented the 'evidence' in court, nor have ever argued fraud ever occurred in any of their legal arguments.
> 
> You ignore it all. So much for your 'evidence'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More Dim talking points, already debunked.
> 
> <YAWN!>
Click to expand...


Nope. Ignoring the huge holes in your conspiracy isn't 'debunking' them. 

A rational person would ask why Trump's legal team neither presented the 'evidence' in court, nor have ever argued fraud ever occurred in any of their legal arguments.

You merely ignore it all. Good luck with that.


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's tons of it, you fucking moron.  You never see it because you only watch fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why, pray tell, has Trump's legal team refused to present such evidence in court......or even alleged that any fraud occured in any of their legal arguments?
> 
> There's a reason why the horseshit you're being fed from press conferences next to adult bookstores......and what Trump's attorneys are actually arguing in court have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They haven't been to court yet, numskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, Trump's legal team have been to court many, many times.
> 
> They've neither presented the 'evidence' nor ever alleged that fraud occurred as part of their legal argument.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have presented tons of evidence.  You need to quit watching fake news.  They are keeping you ignorant and looking like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At a press conference, sure. But not in court. In court, they won't even ALLEGE that fraud ever occurred in their legal arguments.
> 
> Ask yourself why what they are telling in front of a garage door next to a porn shop is so very different from what they are presenting to a judge and arguing in court.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talking point has already been debunked about 100 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course, that it hasn't been 'debunked' even once.
> 
> Its been over a month. Trump's team have filed numerous legal challenges and been to court (digitally or otherwise) numerous times. The have never argued fraud occurred. They have never present your 'smoking guns' in court.
> 
> You've been played
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> debunked talking point.  Try something new for a change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never debunked once.  It wrecks your conspiracy, so you ignore it.
> 
> Trump's legal team has never argued fraud every occurred in any of their legal arguments. When asked by judges if they are moving foward with fraud allegations, they have said that fraud is not part of their argument.
> 
> None of the 'smoking guns' have ever been presented in court by Trump's team. And the reason is simple: they collapse under the slightest scrutiny. Let alone the strict scrutiny standard that Trump's team would be held to under Rule 9b of Federal Civil Procedure when adjudicating fraud allegations.
> 
> And 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is a far higher staneard than strict scrutiny. Your imprisonment fantasies are just that. Fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <YAWN!>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn all you like. The fact remains that Trump's team has never even alleged fraud occured in any of their legal arguments in court.
> 
> Nor have they presented the 'evidence' you claim to cite.
> 
> You can't get around that. All you can do is ignore it.
> 
> The courts didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another Dim talking point.
> 
> <YAWN!>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another enormous hole in your silly conspiracy that you ignore and try and pretend doesn't exist.
> 
> A rational person would ask why Trump's legal team neither presented the 'evidence' in court, nor have ever argued fraud ever occurred in any of their legal arguments.
> 
> You ignore it all. So much for your 'evidence'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More Dim talking points, already debunked.
> 
> <YAWN!>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Ignoring the huge holes in your conspiracy isn't 'debunking' them.
> 
> A rational person would ask why Trump's legal team neither presented the 'evidence' in court, nor have ever argued fraud ever occurred in any of their legal arguments.
> 
> You merely ignore it all. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

<YAWN!>


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's tons of it, you fucking moron.  You never see it because you only watch fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why, pray tell, has Trump's legal team refused to present such evidence in court......or even alleged that any fraud occured in any of their legal arguments?
> 
> There's a reason why the horseshit you're being fed from press conferences next to adult bookstores......and what Trump's attorneys are actually arguing in court have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They haven't been to court yet, numskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, Trump's legal team have been to court many, many times.
> 
> They've neither presented the 'evidence' nor ever alleged that fraud occurred as part of their legal argument.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have presented tons of evidence.  You need to quit watching fake news.  They are keeping you ignorant and looking like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At a press conference, sure. But not in court. In court, they won't even ALLEGE that fraud ever occurred in their legal arguments.
> 
> Ask yourself why what they are telling in front of a garage door next to a porn shop is so very different from what they are presenting to a judge and arguing in court.
> 
> You're being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talking point has already been debunked about 100 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course, that it hasn't been 'debunked' even once.
> 
> Its been over a month. Trump's team have filed numerous legal challenges and been to court (digitally or otherwise) numerous times. The have never argued fraud occurred. They have never present your 'smoking guns' in court.
> 
> You've been played
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> debunked talking point.  Try something new for a change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never debunked once.  It wrecks your conspiracy, so you ignore it.
> 
> Trump's legal team has never argued fraud every occurred in any of their legal arguments. When asked by judges if they are moving foward with fraud allegations, they have said that fraud is not part of their argument.
> 
> None of the 'smoking guns' have ever been presented in court by Trump's team. And the reason is simple: they collapse under the slightest scrutiny. Let alone the strict scrutiny standard that Trump's team would be held to under Rule 9b of Federal Civil Procedure when adjudicating fraud allegations.
> 
> And 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is a far higher staneard than strict scrutiny. Your imprisonment fantasies are just that. Fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <YAWN!>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn all you like. The fact remains that Trump's team has never even alleged fraud occured in any of their legal arguments in court.
> 
> Nor have they presented the 'evidence' you claim to cite.
> 
> You can't get around that. All you can do is ignore it.
> 
> The courts didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another Dim talking point.
> 
> <YAWN!>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another enormous hole in your silly conspiracy that you ignore and try and pretend doesn't exist.
> 
> A rational person would ask why Trump's legal team neither presented the 'evidence' in court, nor have ever argued fraud ever occurred in any of their legal arguments.
> 
> You ignore it all. So much for your 'evidence'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More Dim talking points, already debunked.
> 
> <YAWN!>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Ignoring the huge holes in your conspiracy isn't 'debunking' them.
> 
> A rational person would ask why Trump's legal team neither presented the 'evidence' in court, nor have ever argued fraud ever occurred in any of their legal arguments.
> 
> You merely ignore it all. Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <YAWN!>
Click to expand...


So much for your 'evidence'.


----------



## Dr Grump

iceberg said:


> You sound like a duck farting on a frozen pond.



You are the duck farting on a frozen pond.


----------



## iceberg

Dr Grump said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a duck farting on a frozen pond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the duck farting on a frozen pond.
Click to expand...

My God this is original. 

Rush back to recess and get your high 5s.


----------



## Dr Grump

iceberg said:


> My God this is original.
> 
> Rush back to recess and get your high 5s.



Almost as original as 'fraud' stole the election.
Almost...


----------



## Thunk

RealDave said:


> Texans need to mind their own fucking business.



 

May I suggest some...


----------



## depotoo




----------



## Mac-7

Crepitus said:


> Texas has no standing.


The Texas lawsuit is gathering steam


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.


----------



## Thunk

Add Missouri to the list 

@Eric_Schmitt
·
1h
Election integrity is central to our republic. And I will defend it at every turn.

As I have in other cases - I will help lead the effort in support of Texas’ #SCOTUS filing today.

Missouri is in the fight.


----------



## Snouter

Folks have mentioned it, but it is worth repeating.  There are two possibilities to settle the vote fraud cases, assuming nothing crazy happens, and in both cases President Trump wins.

1) The states with the obvious voter fraud are actually controlled by Republican legislatures and since there is no way to sort out the mail in ballots and other voter fraud, the state legislatures will give their state Electoral votes for President Trump.

2) The states with the obvious voter fraud fail to respond with an alternative by Thursday, thus the House votes with each state getting a vote.  Since there are more Republican states, President Trump will get more House votes and thus be re-elected.  MAGA!


----------



## yidnar

and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud


----------



## yidnar

BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
					

The Supreme Court has officially put the Texas election case suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, filed last night, on the docket: BREAKING – U.S. Supreme Court will hear Texas' lawsuit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin over potential voter fraud. The case...




					newsthud.com


----------



## Synthaholic




----------



## Mac-7

At last report 8 states have joined Texas


----------



## yidnar

and other states are starting to join in !Alabama and Louisiana attorneys general back Supreme Court challenge of 2020 election


----------



## yidnar

Mac-7 said:


> At last report 8 states have joined Texas


this is the beginning of a wave of states standing up to the fraud committed that nullified their voters legal ballot !


----------



## Thunk

Add Missouri to the list 

@Eric_Schmitt
·
1h
Election integrity is central to our republic. And I will defend it at every turn.

As I have in other cases - I will help lead the effort in support of Texas’ #SCOTUS filing today.

Missouri is in the fight.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Don't forget......

The Supreme Court gave us Socialized Medicine via the ACA....yet it was unConstitutional

The Supreme court has consistently sided with the gun control lobby in recent years nearly every time.

The Supreme Court has upheld illegal searches and seizures

The Supreme Court has increased Police Powers by issuing vague and incomplete interpretations of case law.

No matter who we think we have on the SCOTUS, it cannot be trusted to uphold the US Constitution.  It will obey the Establishment.


----------



## Thunk




----------



## White 6

yidnar said:


> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud


This ought to be interesting.


----------



## Mac-7

yidnar said:


> this is the beginning of a wave of states standing up to the fraud committed that nullified their voters legal ballot !


The more states the better


----------



## konradv

Mac-7 said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is the beginning of a wave of states standing up to the fraud committed that nullified their voters legal ballot !
> 
> 
> 
> The more states the better
Click to expand...

I'm sure SCOTUS agrees.  The more states that join, means the fewer arguments they have to hear and decisions they have to make before declaring the suits to be baseless.


----------



## Sunsettommy

I fail to see what the state of Texas can do with this late lawsuit, why this late anyway?

The states being sued will be allowed to file a response.


----------



## Mac-7

konradv said:


> *The more states that join, means the fewer arguments they have to hear and decisions they have to make before declaring the suits to be baseless.*


That might happen

 no one can read the mind of demigods in black robes

but dont bet the rent money either way


----------



## Mac-7

Sunsettommy said:


> The states being sued will be allowed to file a response.


Its more like they will be forced to respond


----------



## Daryl Hunt

yidnar said:


> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud



SCOTUS, as of 5 pm, did not respond on this.  This is the filing,not the acceptance.  You are jumping the gun.  One way or another, this will put this baby to bed.  I can't speak for SCOTUS on way or another but let's keep the facts straight.  The filing of the request is NOT the acceptance by the court.


----------



## konradv

Mac-7 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more states that join, means the fewer arguments they have to hear and decisions they have to make before declaring the suits to be baseless.
> 
> 
> 
> That might happen  no one can read the mind of demigods in black robes but don't bet the rent money either way
Click to expand...

The courts go on precedent, so I don't see how those that were in on the 2000 decision can reverse themselves at this point, especially after the epic lack of success of previous suits.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Daryl Hunt said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS, as of 5 pm, did not respond on this.  This is the filing,not the acceptance.  You are jumping the gun.  One way or another, this will put this baby to bed.  I can't speak for SCOTUS on way or another but let's keep the facts straight.  The filing of the request is NOT the acceptance by the court.
Click to expand...


Then why did the SCOTUS do this?

*Supreme Court Requests Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia Respond to Election Lawsuit By 3pm Thursday*

LINK


----------



## Quasar44

yidnar said:


> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud


This is the last shot for justice but states rarely ever win suing other states
Even the USSC is part of the deep state


----------



## Crepitus

Mac-7 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas has no standing.
> 
> 
> 
> The Texas lawsuit is gathering steam
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter.


----------



## Quasar44

The USSC cockroaches just turned down a perfectly solid lawsuit against Pennsylvania 
 Just dirty lawyers in filthy black robes


----------



## Mac-7

Daryl Hunt said:


> You are jumping the gun.


I’m in no hurry

I’m in this fight till the last dog dies and for as long as it takes


----------



## dudmuck

yidnar said:


> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud


ah, here is why


pandering for a pardon


----------



## Sunsettommy

Quasar44 said:


> The USSC cockroaches just turned down a perfectly solid lawsuit against Pennsylvania
> Just dirty lawyers in filthy black robes



No that lawsuit is still on, it was the INJUNCTION part that was rejected:

*Supreme Court rejects Injunctive relief (NOT THE CASE) on voter fraud by Mike Kelly… and the case is still pending in front of the court*

LINK


----------



## Quasar44

Doc7505 said:


> *Don’t Mess with Texas!
> Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures*
> *Texas goes directly to the Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to order these swing states with voting irregularities to allow their legislatures to appoint presidential electors.*​
> Don't Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures | The Stream
> 8 Dec 2020 ~~ By Al Perrotta
> ~[snip]~
> 
> Just before midnight, the State of Texas threw its massive weight into the election fraud fight. Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds their ad-hoc changes to election procedures were unconstitutional. And as a result, violated the rights of Texans and those in other states that followed the constitution. Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
> What’s more, Texas isn’t fiddling around with lower courts. They marched straight to the Supreme Court. And they are requesting the Supreme Court order the offending states to allow their legislatures to appoint their presidential electors.
> *Dodging State Legislatures Was Dodgy*
> Breitbart was the first major outlet with the story, and breaks down the argument the Lone Star State is making.
> Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.​In their lawsuit, Texas claims “certain officials in the Defendant States” presented the COVID pandemic “as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in balloting.” As streiff at RedState noted, “there’s no pandemic escape hatch in the constitution.”
> ~[snip]~
> *Going to the Supreme Court…a Long Shot, Perhaps*
> Texas approached the Supreme Court directly, Breitbart reports, “because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.”
> Is the Supreme Court going to hear the case? Twitchy has collected the early reaction of legal types, and the consensus seems to be it’s a long shot the Supreme Court will hear the case, let alone rule in Texas’ favor. Several commentators note that the suit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, not the state’s solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who would be the go-to person for suits like this.
> 
> 
> Comment:
> The  Roberts court will either determine that it's none of Texas' business how other states do stuff or that the legistlatures were in session and aware of the changes and did not act, therefore they are implicitly the method determined by the legislature to be appropriate and so once again, buzz of Texas.
> This case doesn’t require evidence, it hangs upon the law being changed illegally, before the election.
> Every American voter in is being disenfranchised in this National Election by the States who were grossly negligent in their duties to conduct a free and fair election.
> All States, who abided by their State Election Rules, should join with Texas and take the scoundrels to court.


Sounds great but states rarely ever win against other states 
 The US is over and done with


----------



## Quasar44

USSC has become on the Democrat side with Roberts and Kav is a lemming


----------



## Mac-7

konradv said:


> The courts go on precedent, so I don't see how those that were in on the 2000 decision can reverse themselves at this point, especially after the epic lack of success of previous suits.


the Texas suit is about constitutional issues and does not depend on proving fraud


----------



## Sunsettommy

dudmuck said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
Click to expand...


No he is serious about the lawsuit:

*State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*

LINK


----------



## Quasar44

Sunsettommy said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The USSC cockroaches just turned down a perfectly solid lawsuit against Pennsylvania
> Just dirty lawyers in filthy black robes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that lawsuit is still on, it was the INJUNCTION part that was rejected:
> 
> *Supreme Court rejects Injunctive relief (NOT THE CASE) on voter fraud by Mike Kelly… and the case is still pending in front of the court*
> 
> LINK
Click to expand...

Not looking very good 
Best T can do is never concede and he should continue to expose the scandal in weekly events


----------



## Quasar44

Mac-7 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> The courts go on precedent, so I don't see how those that were in on the 2000 decision can reverse themselves at this point, especially after the epic lack of success of previous suits.
> 
> 
> 
> the Texas suit is about constitutional issues and does not depend on proving fraud
Click to expand...

With frauds Roberts and Kav ..not looking very good 
 USA is one of the most crooked nations on earth


----------



## dblack

And the circle jerk continues. You guys haven't come yet?


----------



## Borillar

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Doc7505 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Don’t Mess with Texas!
> Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures*
> *Texas goes directly to the Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to order these swing states with voting irregularities to allow their legislatures to appoint presidential electors.*​
> Don't Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures | The Stream
> 8 Dec 2020 ~~ By Al Perrotta
> ~[snip]~
> 
> Just before midnight, the State of Texas threw its massive weight into the election fraud fight. Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds their ad-hoc changes to election procedures were unconstitutional. And as a result, violated the rights of Texans and those in other states that followed the constitution. Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
> What’s more, Texas isn’t fiddling around with lower courts. They marched straight to the Supreme Court. And they are requesting the Supreme Court order the offending states to allow their legislatures to appoint their presidential electors.
> *Dodging State Legislatures Was Dodgy*
> Breitbart was the first major outlet with the story, and breaks down the argument the Lone Star State is making.
> Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.​In their lawsuit, Texas claims “certain officials in the Defendant States” presented the COVID pandemic “as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in balloting.” As streiff at RedState noted, “there’s no pandemic escape hatch in the constitution.”
> ~[snip]~
> *Going to the Supreme Court…a Long Shot, Perhaps*
> Texas approached the Supreme Court directly, Breitbart reports, “because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.”
> Is the Supreme Court going to hear the case? Twitchy has collected the early reaction of legal types, and the consensus seems to be it’s a long shot the Supreme Court will hear the case, let alone rule in Texas’ favor. Several commentators note that the suit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, not the state’s solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who would be the go-to person for suits like this.
> 
> 
> Comment:
> The  Roberts court will either determine that it's none of Texas' business how other states do stuff or that the legistlatures were in session and aware of the changes and did not act, therefore they are implicitly the method determined by the legislature to be appropriate and so once again, buzz of Texas.
> This case doesn’t require evidence, it hangs upon the law being changed illegally, before the election.
> Every American voter in is being disenfranchised in this National Election by the States who were grossly negligent in their duties to conduct a free and fair election.
> All States, who abided by their State Election Rules, should join with Texas and take the scoundrels to court.
> 
> 
> 
> Big Texas Dick slams down on the table.
> 
> Everybody else knows what's at stake:
> https://tnm.me/news/tnm-news/major-announcement-texit-legislation-filed-for-next-legislative-session
> This is a not-so-veiled threat.
> 
> The SCOTUS ordered a response.
Click to expand...

Texit? LOL. All you Trumpublicans should move to Texass, secede and make Trump your king.


----------



## Lakhota

yidnar said:


> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud



Fake news!


----------



## dudmuck

Sunsettommy said:


> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is serious about the lawsuit:
> 
> *State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*
> 
> LINK
Click to expand...

No?









						FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
					

The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.




					www.texastribune.org
				




SCOTUS isn't a magic lamp that grants anti-democratic wishes. You have to actually "show harm" and "have a case" and "go through the appeals process."

Paxton hopes that by appeasing the MAGAs that they will overlook his bribery charges being investigated by the FBI.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

dudmuck said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is serious about the lawsuit:
> 
> *State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
> 
> 
> The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS isn't a magic lamp that grants anti-democratic wishes. You have to actually "show harm" and "have a case" and "go through the appeals process."
> 
> Paxton hopes that by appeasing the MAGAs that they will overlook his bribery charges being investigated by the FBI.
Click to expand...


Why hasn't this guy been on Rumps Cabinet.  With this type of track record he should have been at least under consideration for one of those positions.


----------



## candycorn

yidnar said:


> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud


No reputable sites are reporting it yet.  

Its good we're getting this out of our system during this election cycle so the next time we have a sore loser we won't have to worry about a month long tantrum.


----------



## Sunsettommy

dudmuck said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is serious about the lawsuit:
> 
> *State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
> 
> 
> The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS isn't a magic lamp that grants anti-democratic wishes. You have to actually "show harm" and "have a case" and "go through the appeals process."
> 
> Paxton hopes that by appeasing the MAGAs that they will overlook his bribery charges being investigated by the FBI.
Click to expand...


The Lawsuit is on you moron!

SCOTUS has accepted the lawsuit.


----------



## Lesh

dudmuck said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is serious about the lawsuit:
> 
> *State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
> 
> 
> The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS isn't a magic lamp that grants anti-democratic wishes. You have to actually "show harm" and "have a case" and "go through the appeals process."
> 
> Paxton hopes that by appeasing the MAGAs that they will overlook his bribery charges being investigated by the FBI.
Click to expand...

Paxton is under indictment for one crime and under Federal Investigation for a number of others.
This is nothing but Paxton trying to stroke Trump in order to get a pardon

The SC is never going to even LOOK at this nonsense

*DENIED*


----------



## Sunsettommy

candycorn said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> No reputable sites are reporting it yet.
> 
> Its good we're getting this out of our system during this election cycle so the next time we have a sore loser we won't have to worry about a month long tantrum.
Click to expand...




Lesh said:


> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is serious about the lawsuit:
> 
> *State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
> 
> 
> The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS isn't a magic lamp that grants anti-democratic wishes. You have to actually "show harm" and "have a case" and "go through the appeals process."
> 
> Paxton hopes that by appeasing the MAGAs that they will overlook his bribery charges being investigated by the FBI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paxton is under indictment for one crime and under Federal Investigation for a number of others.
> This is nothing but Paxton trying to stroke Trump in order to get a pardon
> 
> The SC is never going to even LOOK at this nonsense
> 
> *DENIED*
Click to expand...


*Bwahahahahahahaahaha!!!*

SCOTUS already accepted the lawsuit, ordered the sued stated to respond to the lawsuit by 3 PM Thursday.

LINK


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Sunsettommy said:


> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is serious about the lawsuit:
> 
> *State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
> 
> 
> The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS isn't a magic lamp that grants anti-democratic wishes. You have to actually "show harm" and "have a case" and "go through the appeals process."
> 
> Paxton hopes that by appeasing the MAGAs that they will overlook his bribery charges being investigated by the FBI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Lawsuit is on you moron!
> 
> SCOTUS has accepted the lawsuit.
Click to expand...


What has been presented is the application only.  As of 5pm, SCOTUS has not accepted it.  Maybe in the morning one way or another.  You are jumping the gun once again and believing what the fruitcake and conspiracy sites are presenting.  Hell, even the application may be false, we don't know.  We'll give it the benefit and wait and see. 

Damn, you part of the Rumpers will buy anything.  Here's your sign.


----------



## Doc7505

Quasar44 said:


> Doc7505 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Don’t Mess with Texas!
> Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures*
> *Texas goes directly to the Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to order these swing states with voting irregularities to allow their legislatures to appoint presidential electors.*​
> Don't Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures | The Stream
> 8 Dec 2020 ~~ By Al Perrotta
> ~[snip]~
> 
> Just before midnight, the State of Texas threw its massive weight into the election fraud fight. Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds their ad-hoc changes to election procedures were unconstitutional. And as a result, violated the rights of Texans and those in other states that followed the constitution. Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
> What’s more, Texas isn’t fiddling around with lower courts. They marched straight to the Supreme Court. And they are requesting the Supreme Court order the offending states to allow their legislatures to appoint their presidential electors.
> *Dodging State Legislatures Was Dodgy*
> Breitbart was the first major outlet with the story, and breaks down the argument the Lone Star State is making.
> Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.​In their lawsuit, Texas claims “certain officials in the Defendant States” presented the COVID pandemic “as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in balloting.” As streiff at RedState noted, “there’s no pandemic escape hatch in the constitution.”
> ~[snip]~
> *Going to the Supreme Court…a Long Shot, Perhaps*
> Texas approached the Supreme Court directly, Breitbart reports, “because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.”
> Is the Supreme Court going to hear the case? Twitchy has collected the early reaction of legal types, and the consensus seems to be it’s a long shot the Supreme Court will hear the case, let alone rule in Texas’ favor. Several commentators note that the suit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, not the state’s solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who would be the go-to person for suits like this.
> 
> 
> Comment:
> The  Roberts court will either determine that it's none of Texas' business how other states do stuff or that the legistlatures were in session and aware of the changes and did not act, therefore they are implicitly the method determined by the legislature to be appropriate and so once again, buzz of Texas.
> This case doesn’t require evidence, it hangs upon the law being changed illegally, before the election.
> Every American voter in is being disenfranchised in this National Election by the States who were grossly negligent in their duties to conduct a free and fair election.
> All States, who abided by their State Election Rules, should join with Texas and take the scoundrels to court.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds great but states rarely ever win against other states
> The US is over and done with
Click to expand...


~~~~~~
I have a question.. If a state(s) uses fraud and illegal actions during a presidential election does it disenfranchise just the voters within that state(s) or all the citizens in the United States?


----------



## aaronleland

candycorn said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> No reputable sites are reporting it yet.
Click to expand...


Are you telling me News Thud isn't a reputable news site? They're the most thudded name in news.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Daryl Hunt said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is serious about the lawsuit:
> 
> *State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
> 
> 
> The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS isn't a magic lamp that grants anti-democratic wishes. You have to actually "show harm" and "have a case" and "go through the appeals process."
> 
> Paxton hopes that by appeasing the MAGAs that they will overlook his bribery charges being investigated by the FBI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Lawsuit is on you moron!
> 
> SCOTUS has accepted the lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has been presented is the application only.  As of 5pm, SCOTUS has not accepted it.  Maybe in the morning one way or another.  You are jumping the gun once again and believing what the fruitcake and conspiracy sites are presenting.  Hell, even the application may be false, we don't know.  We'll give it the benefit and wait and see.
> 
> Damn, you part of the Rumpers will buy anything.  Here's your sign.
> View attachment 426865
Click to expand...


You are way out of date since SCOTUS has already accepted the lawsuit and directed the sued states to respond by 3 PM Thursday.

You are being an ass.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

aaronleland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> No reputable sites are reporting it yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you telling me News Thud isn't a reputable news site? They're the most thudded name in news.
Click to expand...


They make Foxnews in it's Hayday hide it's face in shame.  Why tell the truth when a lie sounds better.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Sunsettommy said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is serious about the lawsuit:
> 
> *State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
> 
> 
> The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS isn't a magic lamp that grants anti-democratic wishes. You have to actually "show harm" and "have a case" and "go through the appeals process."
> 
> Paxton hopes that by appeasing the MAGAs that they will overlook his bribery charges being investigated by the FBI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Lawsuit is on you moron!
> 
> SCOTUS has accepted the lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has been presented is the application only.  As of 5pm, SCOTUS has not accepted it.  Maybe in the morning one way or another.  You are jumping the gun once again and believing what the fruitcake and conspiracy sites are presenting.  Hell, even the application may be false, we don't know.  We'll give it the benefit and wait and see.
> 
> Damn, you part of the Rumpers will buy anything.  Here's your sign.
> View attachment 426865
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are way out of date since SCOTUS has already accepted the lawsuit and directed the sued states to respond by 3 PM Thursday.
> 
> You are being an ass.
Click to expand...


If they accepted it there would be a record of it by SCOTUS on file.  You want me to believe it, let's see that record along with the case file.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Daryl Hunt said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is serious about the lawsuit:
> 
> *State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
> 
> 
> The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS isn't a magic lamp that grants anti-democratic wishes. You have to actually "show harm" and "have a case" and "go through the appeals process."
> 
> Paxton hopes that by appeasing the MAGAs that they will overlook his bribery charges being investigated by the FBI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Lawsuit is on you moron!
> 
> SCOTUS has accepted the lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has been presented is the application only.  As of 5pm, SCOTUS has not accepted it.  Maybe in the morning one way or another.  You are jumping the gun once again and believing what the fruitcake and conspiracy sites are presenting.  Hell, even the application may be false, we don't know.  We'll give it the benefit and wait and see.
> 
> Damn, you part of the Rumpers will buy anything.  Here's your sign.
> View attachment 426865
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are way out of date since SCOTUS has already accepted the lawsuit and directed the sued states to respond by 3 PM Thursday.
> 
> You are being an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they accepted it there would be a record of it by SCOTUS on file.  You want me to believe it, let's see that record along with the case file.
Click to expand...


It is in the link you lazy reader!

Wait until tomorrow, there will be a lot more on this, then you will finally be forced to admit that it happened.


----------



## candycorn

Sunsettommy said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> No reputable sites are reporting it yet.
> 
> Its good we're getting this out of our system during this election cycle so the next time we have a sore loser we won't have to worry about a month long tantrum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is serious about the lawsuit:
> 
> *State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
> 
> 
> The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS isn't a magic lamp that grants anti-democratic wishes. You have to actually "show harm" and "have a case" and "go through the appeals process."
> 
> Paxton hopes that by appeasing the MAGAs that they will overlook his bribery charges being investigated by the FBI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paxton is under indictment for one crime and under Federal Investigation for a number of others.
> This is nothing but Paxton trying to stroke Trump in order to get a pardon
> 
> The SC is never going to even LOOK at this nonsense
> 
> *DENIED*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bwahahahahahahaahaha!!!*
> 
> SCOTUS already accepted the lawsuit, ordered the sued stated to respond to the lawsuit by 3 PM Thursday.
> 
> LINK
Click to expand...

Again...no reputable sites are reporting this...YET.


----------



## candycorn

Daryl Hunt said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> No reputable sites are reporting it yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you telling me News Thud isn't a reputable news site? They're the most thudded name in news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They make Foxnews in it's Hayday hide it's face in shame.  Why tell the truth when a lie sounds better.
Click to expand...

Not saying it didn't happen...just saying no reputable site is reporting it yet.  We're still waiting for the US Army to produce the servers it seized in Germany.


----------



## Doc7505

Quasar44 said:


> USSC has become on the Democrat side with Roberts and Kav is a lemming




Today's vote was 6-3 doesn't sound like Roberts or Kavanaugh were whimpng out...


----------



## westwall

candycorn said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> No reputable sites are reporting it yet.
> 
> Its good we're getting this out of our system during this election cycle so the next time we have a sore loser we won't have to worry about a month long tantrum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is serious about the lawsuit:
> 
> *State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
> 
> 
> The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS isn't a magic lamp that grants anti-democratic wishes. You have to actually "show harm" and "have a case" and "go through the appeals process."
> 
> Paxton hopes that by appeasing the MAGAs that they will overlook his bribery charges being investigated by the FBI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paxton is under indictment for one crime and under Federal Investigation for a number of others.
> This is nothing but Paxton trying to stroke Trump in order to get a pardon
> 
> The SC is never going to even LOOK at this nonsense
> 
> *DENIED*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bwahahahahahahaahaha!!!*
> 
> SCOTUS already accepted the lawsuit, ordered the sued stated to respond to the lawsuit by 3 PM Thursday.
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...no reputable sites are reporting this...YET.
Click to expand...





The MSM stopped being reputable years ago.


----------



## Quasar44

Doc7505 said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> USSC has become on the Democrat side with Roberts and Kav is a lemming
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today's vote was 6-3 doesn't sound like Roberts or Kavanaugh were whimpng out...
Click to expand...

The odds are low ! 
They should call all 4 states unconstitutional and send it back to the state Congress
 Will they do that ???

Looks like T has officially given up on Nevada and Arizona. These 2 states is much harder to prove but the other 4 states were massive fraud


----------



## Quasar44

I know those 4 states were 100 percent stolen


----------



## Roudy

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Doc7505 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Don’t Mess with Texas!
> Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures*
> *Texas goes directly to the Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to order these swing states with voting irregularities to allow their legislatures to appoint presidential electors.*​
> Don't Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures | The Stream
> 8 Dec 2020 ~~ By Al Perrotta
> ~[snip]~
> 
> Just before midnight, the State of Texas threw its massive weight into the election fraud fight. Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds their ad-hoc changes to election procedures were unconstitutional. And as a result, violated the rights of Texans and those in other states that followed the constitution. Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
> What’s more, Texas isn’t fiddling around with lower courts. They marched straight to the Supreme Court. And they are requesting the Supreme Court order the offending states to allow their legislatures to appoint their presidential electors.
> *Dodging State Legislatures Was Dodgy*
> Breitbart was the first major outlet with the story, and breaks down the argument the Lone Star State is making.
> Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.​In their lawsuit, Texas claims “certain officials in the Defendant States” presented the COVID pandemic “as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in balloting.” As streiff at RedState noted, “there’s no pandemic escape hatch in the constitution.”
> ~[snip]~
> *Going to the Supreme Court…a Long Shot, Perhaps*
> Texas approached the Supreme Court directly, Breitbart reports, “because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.”
> Is the Supreme Court going to hear the case? Twitchy has collected the early reaction of legal types, and the consensus seems to be it’s a long shot the Supreme Court will hear the case, let alone rule in Texas’ favor. Several commentators note that the suit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, not the state’s solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who would be the go-to person for suits like this.
> 
> 
> Comment:
> The  Roberts court will either determine that it's none of Texas' business how other states do stuff or that the legistlatures were in session and aware of the changes and did not act, therefore they are implicitly the method determined by the legislature to be appropriate and so once again, buzz of Texas.
> This case doesn’t require evidence, it hangs upon the law being changed illegally, before the election.
> Every American voter in is being disenfranchised in this National Election by the States who were grossly negligent in their duties to conduct a free and fair election.
> All States, who abided by their State Election Rules, should join with Texas and take the scoundrels to court.
> 
> 
> 
> Big Texas Dick slams down on the table.
> 
> Everybody else knows what's at stake:
> https://tnm.me/news/tnm-news/major-announcement-texit-legislation-filed-for-next-legislative-session
> This is a not-so-veiled threat.
> 
> The SCOTUS ordered a response.
Click to expand...

The equivalent of a fly pattern at the end of the fourth quarter.   You can tell from today's SCOTUS ruling that they're not going to step in this shit.  I place the blame on Trump's campaign advisors, they should have seen this coming a mile away and preempted it.  We had a seriously defective candidate in Joe Biden hiding in the basement..this was a concerted effort at stealing this election across many states, the Democrats had placed their foot soldiers in various Democrat run cities and states and were preparing or should I say conspiring for this fraud for over 6 months, including how to cover their tracks.  You gotta hand it to them they basically carried out an "Ocean's 11" of US elections.


----------



## K9Buck

Roudy said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doc7505 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Don’t Mess with Texas!
> Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures*
> *Texas goes directly to the Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to order these swing states with voting irregularities to allow their legislatures to appoint presidential electors.*​
> Don't Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures | The Stream
> 8 Dec 2020 ~~ By Al Perrotta
> ~[snip]~
> 
> Just before midnight, the State of Texas threw its massive weight into the election fraud fight. Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds their ad-hoc changes to election procedures were unconstitutional. And as a result, violated the rights of Texans and those in other states that followed the constitution. Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
> What’s more, Texas isn’t fiddling around with lower courts. They marched straight to the Supreme Court. And they are requesting the Supreme Court order the offending states to allow their legislatures to appoint their presidential electors.
> *Dodging State Legislatures Was Dodgy*
> Breitbart was the first major outlet with the story, and breaks down the argument the Lone Star State is making.
> Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.​In their lawsuit, Texas claims “certain officials in the Defendant States” presented the COVID pandemic “as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in balloting.” As streiff at RedState noted, “there’s no pandemic escape hatch in the constitution.”
> ~[snip]~
> *Going to the Supreme Court…a Long Shot, Perhaps*
> Texas approached the Supreme Court directly, Breitbart reports, “because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.”
> Is the Supreme Court going to hear the case? Twitchy has collected the early reaction of legal types, and the consensus seems to be it’s a long shot the Supreme Court will hear the case, let alone rule in Texas’ favor. Several commentators note that the suit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, not the state’s solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who would be the go-to person for suits like this.
> 
> 
> Comment:
> The  Roberts court will either determine that it's none of Texas' business how other states do stuff or that the legistlatures were in session and aware of the changes and did not act, therefore they are implicitly the method determined by the legislature to be appropriate and so once again, buzz of Texas.
> This case doesn’t require evidence, it hangs upon the law being changed illegally, before the election.
> Every American voter in is being disenfranchised in this National Election by the States who were grossly negligent in their duties to conduct a free and fair election.
> All States, who abided by their State Election Rules, should join with Texas and take the scoundrels to court.
> 
> 
> 
> Big Texas Dick slams down on the table.
> 
> Everybody else knows what's at stake:
> https://tnm.me/news/tnm-news/major-announcement-texit-legislation-filed-for-next-legislative-session
> This is a not-so-veiled threat.
> 
> The SCOTUS ordered a response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent of a fly pattern at the end of the fourth quarter.   You can tell from today's SCOTUS ruling that they're not going to step in this shit.  I place the blame on Trump's campaign advisors, they should have seen this coming a mile away and preempted it.  We had a seriously defective candidate in Joe Biden hiding in the basement..this was a concerted effort at stealing this election across many states, the Democrats had placed their foot soldiers in various Democrat run cities and states and were preparing or should I say conspiring for this fraud for over 6 months, including how to cover their tracks.  You gotta hand it to them they basically carried out an "Ocean's 11" of US elections.
Click to expand...


Half the country and half the people on this forum are hellbent on turning the U.S. into a fascist, Chinese-style, one-party, oligarchy controlled by the Democratic Party.  It's hard to preserve a nation when half its populace want to destroy it.


----------



## Sunsettommy

candycorn said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> No reputable sites are reporting it yet.
> 
> Its good we're getting this out of our system during this election cycle so the next time we have a sore loser we won't have to worry about a month long tantrum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is serious about the lawsuit:
> 
> *State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
> 
> 
> The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS isn't a magic lamp that grants anti-democratic wishes. You have to actually "show harm" and "have a case" and "go through the appeals process."
> 
> Paxton hopes that by appeasing the MAGAs that they will overlook his bribery charges being investigated by the FBI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paxton is under indictment for one crime and under Federal Investigation for a number of others.
> This is nothing but Paxton trying to stroke Trump in order to get a pardon
> 
> The SC is never going to even LOOK at this nonsense
> 
> *DENIED*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bwahahahahahahaahaha!!!*
> 
> SCOTUS already accepted the lawsuit, ordered the sued stated to respond to the lawsuit by 3 PM Thursday.
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...no reputable sites are reporting this...YET.
Click to expand...


LOL, you are sooo lazy....

Really did you bother to LOOK here?

*The Supreme Court of the United States*



No. 22O155Title:Texas, Plaintiff
v.
Pennsylvania, et al.Docketed:December 8, 2020



DATEPROCEEDINGS AND ORDERSDec 07 2020Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint filed.​Motion for Leave to File a Bill of ComplaintCertificate of Word CountProof of ServiceDec 07 2020Motion to expedite filed by plaintiff Texas.​Main DocumentDec 07 2020Motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay filed by plaintiff Texas.​Main DocumentProof of ServiceOtherDec 08 2020Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm.


LINK


----------



## Quasar44

Sunsettommy said:


> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is serious about the lawsuit:
> 
> *State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
> 
> 
> The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS isn't a magic lamp that grants anti-democratic wishes. You have to actually "show harm" and "have a case" and "go through the appeals process."
> 
> Paxton hopes that by appeasing the MAGAs that they will overlook his bribery charges being investigated by the FBI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Lawsuit is on you moron!
> 
> SCOTUS has accepted the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

This is our final last hope of any justice 
Please let Cruz be head attorney and not Rudy .
 Cruz is the smartest person in the entire Congress


----------



## cnm

yidnar said:


> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud


What's the bet the USSC will deny its suit in one sentence too?


----------



## Quasar44

I am sure the Dems will threaten the USSC.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Sunsettommy said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is serious about the lawsuit:
> 
> *State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
> 
> 
> The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS isn't a magic lamp that grants anti-democratic wishes. You have to actually "show harm" and "have a case" and "go through the appeals process."
> 
> Paxton hopes that by appeasing the MAGAs that they will overlook his bribery charges being investigated by the FBI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Lawsuit is on you moron!
> 
> SCOTUS has accepted the lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has been presented is the application only.  As of 5pm, SCOTUS has not accepted it.  Maybe in the morning one way or another.  You are jumping the gun once again and believing what the fruitcake and conspiracy sites are presenting.  Hell, even the application may be false, we don't know.  We'll give it the benefit and wait and see.
> 
> Damn, you part of the Rumpers will buy anything.  Here's your sign.
> View attachment 426865
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are way out of date since SCOTUS has already accepted the lawsuit and directed the sued states to respond by 3 PM Thursday.
> 
> You are being an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they accepted it there would be a record of it by SCOTUS on file.  You want me to believe it, let's see that record along with the case file.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is in the link you lazy reader!
> 
> Wait until tomorrow, there will be a lot more on this, then you will finally be forced to admit that it happened.
Click to expand...


I read the link and it doesn't had a SCOTUS Docket number on it.

But in all fairness,  let's look at the whole suit that they have filed since you are too lazy to even off that.  Here it is off the Texas site.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

It's more or less, more of the same BS that's been thrown out of court already including what was already refused to be considered by the SC already. 

This is linked from

*Legal Expert Troubled By Ken Paxton’s ‘Preposterous’ Lawsuit Against Battleground States*

Time stamped Dec 8, 7:59 pm.

There are absolutely NO links or real cites to the SCOTUS ever posting online with what is claimed that they posted.  If it were true, there would be a case number and a record of  it on file on the SCOTUS docket.  And SCOTUS doesn't usually post online.  What do you think they are, Rumpers who use Twitter?


----------



## Sunsettommy

Daryl Hunt said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is serious about the lawsuit:
> 
> *State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
> 
> 
> The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS isn't a magic lamp that grants anti-democratic wishes. You have to actually "show harm" and "have a case" and "go through the appeals process."
> 
> Paxton hopes that by appeasing the MAGAs that they will overlook his bribery charges being investigated by the FBI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Lawsuit is on you moron!
> 
> SCOTUS has accepted the lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has been presented is the application only.  As of 5pm, SCOTUS has not accepted it.  Maybe in the morning one way or another.  You are jumping the gun once again and believing what the fruitcake and conspiracy sites are presenting.  Hell, even the application may be false, we don't know.  We'll give it the benefit and wait and see.
> 
> Damn, you part of the Rumpers will buy anything.  Here's your sign.
> View attachment 426865
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are way out of date since SCOTUS has already accepted the lawsuit and directed the sued states to respond by 3 PM Thursday.
> 
> You are being an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they accepted it there would be a record of it by SCOTUS on file.  You want me to believe it, let's see that record along with the case file.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is in the link you lazy reader!
> 
> Wait until tomorrow, there will be a lot more on this, then you will finally be forced to admit that it happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the link and it doesn't had a SCOTUS Docket number on it.
> 
> But in all fairness,  let's look at the whole suit that they have filed since you are too lazy to even off that.  Here it is off the Texas site.
> 
> https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf
> 
> It's more or less, more of the same BS that's been thrown out of court already including what was already refused to be considered by the SC already.
> 
> This is linked from
> 
> *Legal Expert Troubled By Ken Paxton’s ‘Preposterous’ Lawsuit Against Battleground States*
> 
> Time stamped Dec 8, 7:59 pm.
> 
> There are absolutely NO links or real cites to the SCOTUS ever posting online with what is claimed that they posted.  If it were true, there would be a case number and a record of  it on file on the SCOTUS docket.  And SCOTUS doesn't usually post online.  What do you think they are, Rumpers who use Twitter?
Click to expand...


LOOK HERE


----------



## candycorn

Sunsettommy said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> No reputable sites are reporting it yet.
> 
> Its good we're getting this out of our system during this election cycle so the next time we have a sore loser we won't have to worry about a month long tantrum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is serious about the lawsuit:
> 
> *State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
> 
> 
> The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS isn't a magic lamp that grants anti-democratic wishes. You have to actually "show harm" and "have a case" and "go through the appeals process."
> 
> Paxton hopes that by appeasing the MAGAs that they will overlook his bribery charges being investigated by the FBI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paxton is under indictment for one crime and under Federal Investigation for a number of others.
> This is nothing but Paxton trying to stroke Trump in order to get a pardon
> 
> The SC is never going to even LOOK at this nonsense
> 
> *DENIED*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bwahahahahahahaahaha!!!*
> 
> SCOTUS already accepted the lawsuit, ordered the sued stated to respond to the lawsuit by 3 PM Thursday.
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...no reputable sites are reporting this...YET.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you are sooo lazy....
> 
> Really did you bother to LOOK here?
> 
> *The Supreme Court of the United States*
> 
> 
> 
> No. 22O155Title:Texas, Plaintiff
> v.
> Pennsylvania, et al.Docketed:December 8, 2020
> 
> 
> 
> DATEPROCEEDINGS AND ORDERSDec 07 2020Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint filed.​Motion for Leave to File a Bill of ComplaintCertificate of Word CountProof of ServiceDec 07 2020Motion to expedite filed by plaintiff Texas.​Main DocumentDec 07 2020Motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay filed by plaintiff Texas.​Main DocumentProof of ServiceOtherDec 08 2020Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm.
> 
> 
> LINK
Click to expand...

That looks official to me.  Thanks.


----------



## Roudy

K9Buck said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doc7505 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Don’t Mess with Texas!
> Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures*
> *Texas goes directly to the Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to order these swing states with voting irregularities to allow their legislatures to appoint presidential electors.*​
> Don't Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures | The Stream
> 8 Dec 2020 ~~ By Al Perrotta
> ~[snip]~
> 
> Just before midnight, the State of Texas threw its massive weight into the election fraud fight. Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds their ad-hoc changes to election procedures were unconstitutional. And as a result, violated the rights of Texans and those in other states that followed the constitution. Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
> What’s more, Texas isn’t fiddling around with lower courts. They marched straight to the Supreme Court. And they are requesting the Supreme Court order the offending states to allow their legislatures to appoint their presidential electors.
> *Dodging State Legislatures Was Dodgy*
> Breitbart was the first major outlet with the story, and breaks down the argument the Lone Star State is making.
> Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.​In their lawsuit, Texas claims “certain officials in the Defendant States” presented the COVID pandemic “as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in balloting.” As streiff at RedState noted, “there’s no pandemic escape hatch in the constitution.”
> ~[snip]~
> *Going to the Supreme Court…a Long Shot, Perhaps*
> Texas approached the Supreme Court directly, Breitbart reports, “because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.”
> Is the Supreme Court going to hear the case? Twitchy has collected the early reaction of legal types, and the consensus seems to be it’s a long shot the Supreme Court will hear the case, let alone rule in Texas’ favor. Several commentators note that the suit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, not the state’s solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who would be the go-to person for suits like this.
> 
> 
> Comment:
> The  Roberts court will either determine that it's none of Texas' business how other states do stuff or that the legistlatures were in session and aware of the changes and did not act, therefore they are implicitly the method determined by the legislature to be appropriate and so once again, buzz of Texas.
> This case doesn’t require evidence, it hangs upon the law being changed illegally, before the election.
> Every American voter in is being disenfranchised in this National Election by the States who were grossly negligent in their duties to conduct a free and fair election.
> All States, who abided by their State Election Rules, should join with Texas and take the scoundrels to court.
> 
> 
> 
> Big Texas Dick slams down on the table.
> 
> Everybody else knows what's at stake:
> https://tnm.me/news/tnm-news/major-announcement-texit-legislation-filed-for-next-legislative-session
> This is a not-so-veiled threat.
> 
> The SCOTUS ordered a response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent of a fly pattern at the end of the fourth quarter.   You can tell from today's SCOTUS ruling that they're not going to step in this shit.  I place the blame on Trump's campaign advisors, they should have seen this coming a mile away and preempted it.  We had a seriously defective candidate in Joe Biden hiding in the basement..this was a concerted effort at stealing this election across many states, the Democrats had placed their foot soldiers in various Democrat run cities and states and were preparing or should I say conspiring for this fraud for over 6 months, including how to cover their tracks.  You gotta hand it to them they basically carried out an "Ocean's 11" of US elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Half the country and half the people on this forum are hellbent on turning the U.S. into a fascist, Chinese-style, one-party, oligarchy controlled by the Democratic Party.  It's hard to preserve a nation when half its populace want to destroy it.
Click to expand...

 Let's be honest about it, the Chinese outsmarted us.  Perhaps Trump shouldn't have pushed them so hard such that they unleashed this virus and conspired with the Dems to get rid of Trump.  Bottom line is once again, I don't see any court overturning hundreds of thousands of votes, even if there is sufficient constitutional reason to do so.  The only way it will happen is if state legislators do it, and then the court steps in to back them up.  The clock is ticking and Trump is seriously running out of time, come December 15 if all the electors submit enough votes for Biden, then it's over.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Sunsettommy said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> No reputable sites are reporting it yet.
> 
> Its good we're getting this out of our system during this election cycle so the next time we have a sore loser we won't have to worry about a month long tantrum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is serious about the lawsuit:
> 
> *State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
> 
> 
> The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS isn't a magic lamp that grants anti-democratic wishes. You have to actually "show harm" and "have a case" and "go through the appeals process."
> 
> Paxton hopes that by appeasing the MAGAs that they will overlook his bribery charges being investigated by the FBI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paxton is under indictment for one crime and under Federal Investigation for a number of others.
> This is nothing but Paxton trying to stroke Trump in order to get a pardon
> 
> The SC is never going to even LOOK at this nonsense
> 
> *DENIED*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bwahahahahahahaahaha!!!*
> 
> SCOTUS already accepted the lawsuit, ordered the sued stated to respond to the lawsuit by 3 PM Thursday.
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...no reputable sites are reporting this...YET.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you are sooo lazy....
> 
> Really did you bother to LOOK here?
> 
> *The Supreme Court of the United States*
> 
> 
> 
> No. 22O155Title:Texas, Plaintiff
> v.
> Pennsylvania, et al.Docketed:December 8, 2020
> 
> 
> 
> DATEPROCEEDINGS AND ORDERSDec 07 2020Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint filed.​Motion for Leave to File a Bill of ComplaintCertificate of Word CountProof of ServiceDec 07 2020Motion to expedite filed by plaintiff Texas.​Main DocumentDec 07 2020Motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay filed by plaintiff Texas.​Main DocumentProof of ServiceOtherDec 08 2020Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm.
> 
> 
> LINK
Click to expand...


It only shows that it's been filed.  It doesn't show that it's been accepted for ruling.  It isn't requiring the defending states to do anything.  What it does say is that the court will rule if they will accept it one way or another by Dec 10 by 3 pm.  

And since the suit is just a rehash of all the other suits that have been thrown out of court (including the suit just thrown out by the SC today) what do you think the chances of it being considered?  This is the biggest hail mary that's ever been thrown.

Now how about stopping reading into it what's not there.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

candycorn said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> No reputable sites are reporting it yet.
> 
> Its good we're getting this out of our system during this election cycle so the next time we have a sore loser we won't have to worry about a month long tantrum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is serious about the lawsuit:
> 
> *State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
> 
> 
> The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS isn't a magic lamp that grants anti-democratic wishes. You have to actually "show harm" and "have a case" and "go through the appeals process."
> 
> Paxton hopes that by appeasing the MAGAs that they will overlook his bribery charges being investigated by the FBI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paxton is under indictment for one crime and under Federal Investigation for a number of others.
> This is nothing but Paxton trying to stroke Trump in order to get a pardon
> 
> The SC is never going to even LOOK at this nonsense
> 
> *DENIED*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bwahahahahahahaahaha!!!*
> 
> SCOTUS already accepted the lawsuit, ordered the sued stated to respond to the lawsuit by 3 PM Thursday.
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...no reputable sites are reporting this...YET.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you are sooo lazy....
> 
> Really did you bother to LOOK here?
> 
> *The Supreme Court of the United States*
> 
> 
> 
> No. 22O155Title:Texas, Plaintiff
> v.
> Pennsylvania, et al.Docketed:December 8, 2020
> 
> 
> 
> DATEPROCEEDINGS AND ORDERSDec 07 2020Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint filed.​Motion for Leave to File a Bill of ComplaintCertificate of Word CountProof of ServiceDec 07 2020Motion to expedite filed by plaintiff Texas.​Main DocumentDec 07 2020Motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay filed by plaintiff Texas.​Main DocumentProof of ServiceOtherDec 08 2020Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm.
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That looks official to me.  Thanks.
Click to expand...


It is.  But it isn't saying what he is claiming it is saying.  He has a reading disorder.  It hasn't reached the consideration stage quite yet.


----------



## cnm

Sunsettommy said:


> LINK


So...the motion for leave to file has not yet been granted?


----------



## candycorn

Here is how it's going to go:

Texas makes it's case:






The judge considers it...briefly.

And then:


----------



## candycorn

Daryl Hunt said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> No reputable sites are reporting it yet.
> 
> Its good we're getting this out of our system during this election cycle so the next time we have a sore loser we won't have to worry about a month long tantrum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is serious about the lawsuit:
> 
> *State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
> 
> 
> The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS isn't a magic lamp that grants anti-democratic wishes. You have to actually "show harm" and "have a case" and "go through the appeals process."
> 
> Paxton hopes that by appeasing the MAGAs that they will overlook his bribery charges being investigated by the FBI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paxton is under indictment for one crime and under Federal Investigation for a number of others.
> This is nothing but Paxton trying to stroke Trump in order to get a pardon
> 
> The SC is never going to even LOOK at this nonsense
> 
> *DENIED*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bwahahahahahahaahaha!!!*
> 
> SCOTUS already accepted the lawsuit, ordered the sued stated to respond to the lawsuit by 3 PM Thursday.
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...no reputable sites are reporting this...YET.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you are sooo lazy....
> 
> Really did you bother to LOOK here?
> 
> *The Supreme Court of the United States*
> 
> 
> 
> No. 22O155Title:Texas, Plaintiff
> v.
> Pennsylvania, et al.Docketed:December 8, 2020
> 
> 
> 
> DATEPROCEEDINGS AND ORDERSDec 07 2020Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint filed.​Motion for Leave to File a Bill of ComplaintCertificate of Word CountProof of ServiceDec 07 2020Motion to expedite filed by plaintiff Texas.​Main DocumentDec 07 2020Motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay filed by plaintiff Texas.​Main DocumentProof of ServiceOtherDec 08 2020Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm.
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That looks official to me.  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is.  But it isn't saying what he is claiming it is saying.  He has a reading disorder.  It hasn't reached the consideration stage quite yet.
Click to expand...

But at least there is actually a case filed.

Unlike skye telling us about some raid in Germany.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Daryl Hunt said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> No reputable sites are reporting it yet.
> 
> Its good we're getting this out of our system during this election cycle so the next time we have a sore loser we won't have to worry about a month long tantrum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is serious about the lawsuit:
> 
> *State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
> 
> 
> The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS isn't a magic lamp that grants anti-democratic wishes. You have to actually "show harm" and "have a case" and "go through the appeals process."
> 
> Paxton hopes that by appeasing the MAGAs that they will overlook his bribery charges being investigated by the FBI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paxton is under indictment for one crime and under Federal Investigation for a number of others.
> This is nothing but Paxton trying to stroke Trump in order to get a pardon
> 
> The SC is never going to even LOOK at this nonsense
> 
> *DENIED*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bwahahahahahahaahaha!!!*
> 
> SCOTUS already accepted the lawsuit, ordered the sued stated to respond to the lawsuit by 3 PM Thursday.
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...no reputable sites are reporting this...YET.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you are sooo lazy....
> 
> Really did you bother to LOOK here?
> 
> *The Supreme Court of the United States*
> 
> 
> 
> No. 22O155Title:Texas, Plaintiff
> v.
> Pennsylvania, et al.Docketed:December 8, 2020
> 
> 
> 
> DATEPROCEEDINGS AND ORDERSDec 07 2020Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint filed.​Motion for Leave to File a Bill of ComplaintCertificate of Word CountProof of ServiceDec 07 2020Motion to expedite filed by plaintiff Texas.​Main DocumentDec 07 2020Motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay filed by plaintiff Texas.​Main DocumentProof of ServiceOtherDec 08 2020Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm.
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It only shows that it's been filed.  It doesn't show that it's been accepted for ruling.  It isn't requiring the defending states to do anything.  What it does say is that the court will rule if they will accept it one way or another by Dec 10 by 3 pm.
> 
> And since the suit is just a rehash of all the other suits that have been thrown out of court (including the suit just thrown out by the SC today) what do you think the chances of it being considered?  This is the biggest hail mary that's ever been thrown.
> 
> Now how about stopping reading into it what's not there.
Click to expand...


Read it again.... carefully.... keyword is bolded, can you understand now?

*



			Response
		
Click to expand...

*


> to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm.



The sued states are being asked to *respond* to the motion of the previous day.

When they say it is DOCKETED, it means they have accepted the case.


----------



## Quasar44

cnm said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> What's the bet the USSC will deny its suit in one sentence too?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that may happen as the justices are still all politicians


----------



## Daryl Hunt

cnm said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> So...the motion for leave to file has not yet been granted?
> 
> View attachment 426871
Click to expand...


Doesn't look like it. Or maybe they haven't paid for it yet which would also delay it being approved.  Until it's paid for, the suit won't even be looked at by the clerk.  More than one suit has been refused by the clerk due to non payment in the past by a pre determined time period.  Until the motion to leave has been satisfied, no Justice will even see it to either refuse it or rule on it.


----------



## Quasar44

Roudy said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doc7505 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Don’t Mess with Texas!
> Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures*
> *Texas goes directly to the Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to order these swing states with voting irregularities to allow their legislatures to appoint presidential electors.*​
> Don't Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures | The Stream
> 8 Dec 2020 ~~ By Al Perrotta
> ~[snip]~
> 
> Just before midnight, the State of Texas threw its massive weight into the election fraud fight. Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds their ad-hoc changes to election procedures were unconstitutional. And as a result, violated the rights of Texans and those in other states that followed the constitution. Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
> What’s more, Texas isn’t fiddling around with lower courts. They marched straight to the Supreme Court. And they are requesting the Supreme Court order the offending states to allow their legislatures to appoint their presidential electors.
> *Dodging State Legislatures Was Dodgy*
> Breitbart was the first major outlet with the story, and breaks down the argument the Lone Star State is making.
> Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.​In their lawsuit, Texas claims “certain officials in the Defendant States” presented the COVID pandemic “as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in balloting.” As streiff at RedState noted, “there’s no pandemic escape hatch in the constitution.”
> ~[snip]~
> *Going to the Supreme Court…a Long Shot, Perhaps*
> Texas approached the Supreme Court directly, Breitbart reports, “because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.”
> Is the Supreme Court going to hear the case? Twitchy has collected the early reaction of legal types, and the consensus seems to be it’s a long shot the Supreme Court will hear the case, let alone rule in Texas’ favor. Several commentators note that the suit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, not the state’s solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who would be the go-to person for suits like this.
> 
> 
> Comment:
> The  Roberts court will either determine that it's none of Texas' business how other states do stuff or that the legistlatures were in session and aware of the changes and did not act, therefore they are implicitly the method determined by the legislature to be appropriate and so once again, buzz of Texas.
> This case doesn’t require evidence, it hangs upon the law being changed illegally, before the election.
> Every American voter in is being disenfranchised in this National Election by the States who were grossly negligent in their duties to conduct a free and fair election.
> All States, who abided by their State Election Rules, should join with Texas and take the scoundrels to court.
> 
> 
> 
> Big Texas Dick slams down on the table.
> 
> Everybody else knows what's at stake:
> https://tnm.me/news/tnm-news/major-announcement-texit-legislation-filed-for-next-legislative-session
> This is a not-so-veiled threat.
> 
> The SCOTUS ordered a response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent of a fly pattern at the end of the fourth quarter.   You can tell from today's SCOTUS ruling that they're not going to step in this shit.  I place the blame on Trump's campaign advisors, they should have seen this coming a mile away and preempted it.  We had a seriously defective candidate in Joe Biden hiding in the basement..this was a concerted effort at stealing this election across many states, the Democrats had placed their foot soldiers in various Democrat run cities and states and were preparing or should I say conspiring for this fraud for over 6 months, including how to cover their tracks.  You gotta hand it to them they basically carried out an "Ocean's 11" of US elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Half the country and half the people on this forum are hellbent on turning the U.S. into a fascist, Chinese-style, one-party, oligarchy controlled by the Democratic Party.  It's hard to preserve a nation when half its populace want to destroy it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's be honest about it, the Chinese outsmarted us.  Perhaps Trump shouldn't have pushed them so hard such that they unleashed this virus and conspired with the Dems to get rid of Trump.  Bottom line is once again, I don't see any court overturning hundreds of thousands of votes, even if there is sufficient constitutional reason to do so.  The only way it will happen is if state legislators do it, and then the court steps in to back them up.  The clock is ticking and Trump is seriously running out of time, come December 15 if all the electors submit enough votes for Biden, then it's over.
Click to expand...

China did not release the virus on purpose.  
It was a military thing that accidental leaked out


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Sunsettommy said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> 
> 
> No reputable sites are reporting it yet.
> 
> Its good we're getting this out of our system during this election cycle so the next time we have a sore loser we won't have to worry about a month long tantrum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there may be other states to follow !    BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states | News Thud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ah, here is why
> 
> 
> pandering for a pardon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is serious about the lawsuit:
> 
> *State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit*
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
> 
> 
> The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS isn't a magic lamp that grants anti-democratic wishes. You have to actually "show harm" and "have a case" and "go through the appeals process."
> 
> Paxton hopes that by appeasing the MAGAs that they will overlook his bribery charges being investigated by the FBI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paxton is under indictment for one crime and under Federal Investigation for a number of others.
> This is nothing but Paxton trying to stroke Trump in order to get a pardon
> 
> The SC is never going to even LOOK at this nonsense
> 
> *DENIED*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bwahahahahahahaahaha!!!*
> 
> SCOTUS already accepted the lawsuit, ordered the sued stated to respond to the lawsuit by 3 PM Thursday.
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...no reputable sites are reporting this...YET.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you are sooo lazy....
> 
> Really did you bother to LOOK here?
> 
> *The Supreme Court of the United States*
> 
> 
> 
> No. 22O155Title:Texas, Plaintiff
> v.
> Pennsylvania, et al.Docketed:December 8, 2020
> 
> 
> 
> DATEPROCEEDINGS AND ORDERSDec 07 2020Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint filed.​Motion for Leave to File a Bill of ComplaintCertificate of Word CountProof of ServiceDec 07 2020Motion to expedite filed by plaintiff Texas.​Main DocumentDec 07 2020Motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay filed by plaintiff Texas.​Main DocumentProof of ServiceOtherDec 08 2020Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm.
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It only shows that it's been filed.  It doesn't show that it's been accepted for ruling.  It isn't requiring the defending states to do anything.  What it does say is that the court will rule if they will accept it one way or another by Dec 10 by 3 pm.
> 
> And since the suit is just a rehash of all the other suits that have been thrown out of court (including the suit just thrown out by the SC today) what do you think the chances of it being considered?  This is the biggest hail mary that's ever been thrown.
> 
> Now how about stopping reading into it what's not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read it again.... carefully.... keyword is bolded, can you understand now?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Response
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sued states are being asked to *respond* to the motion of the previous day.
> 
> When they say it is DOCKETED, it means they have accepted the case.
Click to expand...


The case hasn't gone past the motion for leave yet.  And they have until Dec. 10, 3pm to satisfy it or it won't be considered at all.  It will never make it past the Court Clerk.  Now, where do you get your idea that any action of the "Offending" States are ordered?  And it can't be docketed until it gets out of motion for leave.  Did Texas run out of money to pay for it?


----------



## Roudy

Quasar44 said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doc7505 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Don’t Mess with Texas!
> Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures*
> *Texas goes directly to the Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to order these swing states with voting irregularities to allow their legislatures to appoint presidential electors.*​
> Don't Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures | The Stream
> 8 Dec 2020 ~~ By Al Perrotta
> ~[snip]~
> 
> Just before midnight, the State of Texas threw its massive weight into the election fraud fight. Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds their ad-hoc changes to election procedures were unconstitutional. And as a result, violated the rights of Texans and those in other states that followed the constitution. Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
> What’s more, Texas isn’t fiddling around with lower courts. They marched straight to the Supreme Court. And they are requesting the Supreme Court order the offending states to allow their legislatures to appoint their presidential electors.
> *Dodging State Legislatures Was Dodgy*
> Breitbart was the first major outlet with the story, and breaks down the argument the Lone Star State is making.
> Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.​In their lawsuit, Texas claims “certain officials in the Defendant States” presented the COVID pandemic “as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in balloting.” As streiff at RedState noted, “there’s no pandemic escape hatch in the constitution.”
> ~[snip]~
> *Going to the Supreme Court…a Long Shot, Perhaps*
> Texas approached the Supreme Court directly, Breitbart reports, “because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.”
> Is the Supreme Court going to hear the case? Twitchy has collected the early reaction of legal types, and the consensus seems to be it’s a long shot the Supreme Court will hear the case, let alone rule in Texas’ favor. Several commentators note that the suit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, not the state’s solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who would be the go-to person for suits like this.
> 
> 
> Comment:
> The  Roberts court will either determine that it's none of Texas' business how other states do stuff or that the legistlatures were in session and aware of the changes and did not act, therefore they are implicitly the method determined by the legislature to be appropriate and so once again, buzz of Texas.
> This case doesn’t require evidence, it hangs upon the law being changed illegally, before the election.
> Every American voter in is being disenfranchised in this National Election by the States who were grossly negligent in their duties to conduct a free and fair election.
> All States, who abided by their State Election Rules, should join with Texas and take the scoundrels to court.
> 
> 
> 
> Big Texas Dick slams down on the table.
> 
> Everybody else knows what's at stake:
> https://tnm.me/news/tnm-news/major-announcement-texit-legislation-filed-for-next-legislative-session
> This is a not-so-veiled threat.
> 
> The SCOTUS ordered a response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent of a fly pattern at the end of the fourth quarter.   You can tell from today's SCOTUS ruling that they're not going to step in this shit.  I place the blame on Trump's campaign advisors, they should have seen this coming a mile away and preempted it.  We had a seriously defective candidate in Joe Biden hiding in the basement..this was a concerted effort at stealing this election across many states, the Democrats had placed their foot soldiers in various Democrat run cities and states and were preparing or should I say conspiring for this fraud for over 6 months, including how to cover their tracks.  You gotta hand it to them they basically carried out an "Ocean's 11" of US elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Half the country and half the people on this forum are hellbent on turning the U.S. into a fascist, Chinese-style, one-party, oligarchy controlled by the Democratic Party.  It's hard to preserve a nation when half its populace want to destroy it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's be honest about it, the Chinese outsmarted us.  Perhaps Trump shouldn't have pushed them so hard such that they unleashed this virus and conspired with the Dems to get rid of Trump.  Bottom line is once again, I don't see any court overturning hundreds of thousands of votes, even if there is sufficient constitutional reason to do so.  The only way it will happen is if state legislators do it, and then the court steps in to back them up.  The clock is ticking and Trump is seriously running out of time, come December 15 if all the electors submit enough votes for Biden, then it's over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China did not release the virus on purpose.
> It was a military thing that accidental leaked out
Click to expand...

Smack in the middle of an election year, which results in an economic collapse, which enables the Democrats to completely capitalize and defeat Trump.  Too many coincidental things that lead to a pretty solid circumstantial case, usually good enough to get a conviction in a court of law.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees

9thIDdoc said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the suit, he claims that pandemic-era changes to election procedures in those states violated federal law, and asks the U.S. Supreme Court to block the states from voting in the Electoral College."
> Nevermind the fact that the election laws in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan were passed by their own state legislatures, but Texas knows better...even tho when they tried to challenge their own state's election laws, they were laughed out of court.
> 
> 
> 
> My home is in Tennessee. I should allow the State legislatures in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan decide who my President is? Bullspit. This is a federal-not State-election.
Click to expand...

But the problem is that those state legislatures have been circumvented. That’s the crux of the suits. Those states violated federal constitutional law by not having voting changes approved by their state legislatures which is required by state constitutional law.


----------



## candycorn

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the suit, he claims that pandemic-era changes to election procedures in those states violated federal law, and asks the U.S. Supreme Court to block the states from voting in the Electoral College."
> Nevermind the fact that the election laws in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan were passed by their own state legislatures, but Texas knows better...even tho when they tried to challenge their own state's election laws, they were laughed out of court.
> 
> 
> 
> My home is in Tennessee. I should allow the State legislatures in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan decide who my President is? Bullspit. This is a federal-not State-election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the problem is that those state legislatures have been circumvented. That’s the crux of the suits. Those states violated federal constitutional law by not having voting changes approved by their state legislatures which is required by state constitutional law.
Click to expand...


The Governor of Texas extended the in-person voting period without going through the state legislature.

You DO want those 38 Electoral votes for the blob nullified too...right?









						Governor Abbott Extends Early Voting Period For November 3rd Election
					






					gov.texas.gov


----------



## BULLDOG

Doc7505 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> SEVEN states have now joined Texas lawsuit, arguing that the Equal Protection Clause has been violated in this election from state-to-state.
> 
> @Louisiana
> , Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those floundering states trying to climb into that last little lifeboat. They don't even care that it has a huge hole in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ~~~~~~
> *SCOTUS has voted 6-3 to hear the Texas lawsuit.*
> Washington Pundit © on Twitter: "The 6-3 SCOTUS RULING came to us as personal communication from a trusted source. Since we could not find an official declaration, we removed the post. Praying it will come to fruition." / Twitter
> 
> Washington Pundit ©
> @TWPundit
> ·
> 9m
Click to expand...


Come back when there is something official instead of just some made up shit.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Missouri is now in as well.

So that would now be Texas,  Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Missouri filing suit against the four Dumbass states.









						Missouri joins 'fight' alongside Texas to challenge election before Supreme Court
					






					www.foxnews.com


----------



## Penelope

Tramp is a loser , he will go down as the worst Potus in the US.

Obama will go down as one of the best.


----------



## busybee01

LordBrownTrout said:


> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.



Yes they did. Your saying so does not make it true.


----------



## busybee01

Snouter said:


> Folks have mentioned it, but it is worth repeating.  There are two possibilities to settle the vote fraud cases, assuming nothing crazy happens, and in both cases President Trump wins.
> 
> 1) The states with the obvious voter fraud are actually controlled by Republican legislatures and since there is no way to sort out the mail in ballots and other voter fraud, the state legislatures will give their state Electoral votes for President Trump.
> 
> 2) The states with the obvious voter fraud fail to respond with an alternative by Thursday, thus the House votes with each state getting a vote.  Since there are more Republican states, President Trump will get more House votes and thus be re-elected.  MAGA!



1. No voter fraud has been proven. What you want is for state legislatures to overturn the will of the people.

2. Since there was no voter fraud, they don't have to come up with anything. There is no such provision in the Constitution.


----------



## cnm

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Big Texas Dick slams down on the table.
> 
> Everybody else knows what's at stake:
> https://tnm.me/news/tnm-news/major-announcement-texit-legislation-filed-for-next-legislative-session
> This is a not-so-veiled threat.
> 
> The SCOTUS ordered a response.


Please, please let the referendum be decided in the affirmative...


----------



## Dr Grump

Aren't right wing loons (generally) for state's rights? Wonder how Texarse would feel if NY decided it wanted to repeal Texarse's CCW laws?


----------



## Mac-7

Quasar44 said:


> With frauds Roberts and Kav ..not looking very good


I agree

dems need just one conservative judge to join roberts and the three stooges and they win 5-4

but it could go the other way also


----------



## LoneLaugher

iceberg said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will go nowhere.
> 
> Those who cheer this kind of desperate legal ploy to try and overturn an election ought to take a long, hard look at themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> those who make these moves necessary should certainly do the same.
Click to expand...


Nobody. Nobody made these desperate moves necessary.


----------



## LoneLaugher

bripat9643 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will go nowhere.
> 
> Those who cheer this kind of desperate legal ploy to try and overturn an election ought to take a long, hard look at themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the criminals conducting voter fraud are the ones who should be looking at themselves.  Then they should be locked up.
Click to expand...


Didn't happen. You are a dupe who has zero regard for our system of free and fair elections. 

All for a disinterested, incompetent grifter.


----------



## LoneLaugher

bripat9643 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And making up Russia and forging evidence and spying did what for the good of the country? At least the right IS going 5hrough the courts vs the dems route.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right is making up evidence not going through the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What evidence did they "make up," the video of GA poll workers counting votes after they kicked out all the observers?
Click to expand...


Yes. That didn't happen. 

Next.


----------



## LoneLaugher

LordBrownTrout said:


> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.



What you have said here is untrue.


----------



## BULLDOG

Mac-7 said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With frauds Roberts and Kav ..not looking very good
> 
> 
> 
> I agree
> 
> dems just need one conservative judge to join roberts and the three stooges and they win 5-4
> 
> but it could go the other way also
Click to expand...


After decades of claiming moral superiority, the right threw that all away for the promise from an immoral president to let the religious nuts pick new supreme court justices.  You got your pick. Do you think it was all worth it?


----------



## Mac-7

BULLDOG said:


> After decades of claiming moral superiority, the right threw that all away for the promise from an immoral president to let the religious nuts pick new supreme court justices. You got your pick. Do you think it was all worth it?


We’ll see

If hillary were president and had appointed three atheists we would have no hope at all


----------



## CowboyTed

9thIDdoc said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the suit, he claims that pandemic-era changes to election procedures in those states violated federal law, and asks the U.S. Supreme Court to block the states from voting in the Electoral College."
> Nevermind the fact that the election laws in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan were passed by their own state legislatures, but Texas knows better...even tho when they tried to challenge their own state's election laws, they were laughed out of court.
> 
> 
> 
> My home is in Tennessee. I should allow the State legislatures in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan decide who my President is? Bullspit. This is a federal-not State-election.
Click to expand...


Under your reasoning then one state can object to other Senators as well... Senators vote on decisions for all Americans...

So explain how the majority in the Senate has only 44% of the vote while 55% are in the minority...


----------



## CowboyTed

9thIDdoc said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course - Texas has every right to change election laws in all 57 states because, you know ... TEXAS!
> Good lord, when will Republicans stop embarrassing themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will make them pay for it?
> 
> Their voters?? Nope...
> 
> They are embarrassing themselves for their voters....
> 
> and when this is said and done, I guarantee you that these folks will get pissed if you ever remind them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you would prefer the people nationwide to pay for those States' "right" to defraud the the rest of the rest the United States. Voting fraud affects *all* Americans.
Click to expand...


*Allegations of fraud with no evidence shouldn't affect any Americans....

We are weeks now of the allegations of fraud... Where is the evidence... Evidence that will stand up in court...

Where is it? 

No messages of 'it is coming' or 'it is everywhere'... Accusing people of a crime and having no evidence is a crime in itself...*


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Relax everyone, Ken Paxton is just trying to get a pardon....

Trump is a child so its practically that easy to get a pardon from him.....


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Claudette said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In new lawsuit, Texas contests election results in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania
> 
> 
> Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" in the Electoral College. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, experts say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" in the Electoral College. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud --  In the suit, he claims that pandemic-era changes to election procedures in those states violated federal law, and asks the U.S. Supreme Court to block the states from voting in the Electoral College."*
> 
> In a brilliant move, Paxton does the same thing Democrats did back when they were filing lawsuits all over the place to stop Trump from being inaugurated....so what's fair is fair right??
> 
> Nevermind the fact that the election laws in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan were passed by their own state legislatures, but Texas knows better...even tho when they tried to challenge their own state's election laws, they were laughed out of court...but anything for the God-King Trump...
> 
> We will all pretend this never happened later anyways, so why not....
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid is as Texas does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so stupid. Everyone of those states changed election laws in violation of the Constitution. Its on another thread on this board. Texas has a very good case.
> 
> Alito is already looking at PA.
Click to expand...

Bawahahahahahahhahaha

The delusions of you Trumpers...

and when it is clear how wrong you folks are, you ignore it and go on to be wrong about something else...

This lawsuit is stupid, it has no standing and you are about to find out that this is just an attempt for Paxton to get a pardon....since he is currently indicted


----------



## Turtlesoup

Biff_Poindexter said:


> In new lawsuit, Texas contests election results in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania
> 
> 
> Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" in the Electoral College. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, experts say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" in the Electoral College. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud --  In the suit, he claims that pandemic-era changes to election procedures in those states violated federal law, and asks the U.S. Supreme Court to block the states from voting in the Electoral College."*
> 
> In a brilliant move, Paxton does the same thing Democrats did back when they were filing lawsuits all over the place to stop Trump from being inaugurated....so what's fair is fair right??
> 
> Nevermind the fact that the election laws in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan were passed by their own state legislatures, but Texas knows better...even tho when they tried to challenge their own state's election laws, they were laughed out of court...but anything for the God-King Trump...
> 
> We will all pretend this never happened later anyways, so why not....


Actually no--Ga didn't follow its own laws-----------
And TEXAS is unique in that they tested out the dominion voter system BEFORE the ELECTION and found that DOMINION which was used in all 4 of these states was prone to FRAUD and abuse making it UNRELIABLE for election results.   TEXAS can not accept the votes of these 4 states because they USED the DOMINION System which they know to be Corrupt.   TEXAS can't allow their voters to be disenfranchised by the cheating in these 4 other states...especially since the 4 other states are only intent in covering up their election fraud to save face or steal the election on purpose.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Turtlesoup said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In new lawsuit, Texas contests election results in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania
> 
> 
> Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" in the Electoral College. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, experts say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" in the Electoral College. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud --  In the suit, he claims that pandemic-era changes to election procedures in those states violated federal law, and asks the U.S. Supreme Court to block the states from voting in the Electoral College."*
> 
> In a brilliant move, Paxton does the same thing Democrats did back when they were filing lawsuits all over the place to stop Trump from being inaugurated....so what's fair is fair right??
> 
> Nevermind the fact that the election laws in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan were passed by their own state legislatures, but Texas knows better...even tho when they tried to challenge their own state's election laws, they were laughed out of court...but anything for the God-King Trump...
> 
> We will all pretend this never happened later anyways, so why not....
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no--Ga didn't follow its own laws-----------
> And TEXAS is unique in that they tested out the dominion voter system BEFORE the ELECTION and found that DOMINION which was used in all 4 of these states was prone to FRAUD and abuse making it UNRELIABLE for election results.   TEXAS can not accept the votes of these 4 states because they USED the DOMINION System which they know to be Corrupt.   TEXAS can't allow their voters to be disenfranchised by the cheating in these 4 other states...especially since the 4 other states are only intent in covering up their election fraud to save face or steal the election on purpose.
Click to expand...

Bawahahahahahahahhahahahahaha





Trumpers are having copium overdoses.....this would be embarrassing if you folks had the ability to feel shame.....


----------



## martybegan

Coyote said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is saying the States in question violated the rules. This led to the increased chance of fraud.
> 
> There is no hard evidence YET, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence you ignore.  You act like the people who did it wouldn't try to hide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States make their own rukes and they have been upheld.
Click to expand...


In the case Texas is trying to make they are saying the rules have to come from the legislature, as per the US Constitution.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is saying the States in question violated the rules. This led to the increased chance of fraud.
> 
> There is no hard evidence YET, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence you ignore.  You act like the people who did it wouldn't try to hide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the States have found no violation of their own rules.
> 
> Texas lacks standing to challenge the internal rules of another State.
Click to expand...


The rules are supposed to come from the Legislatures as per the US Constitution, not the Executive or the Judicial.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Dr Grump said:


> Aren't right wing loons (generally) for state's rights? Wonder how Texarse would feel if NY decided it wanted to repeal Texarse's CCW laws?


What laws----these 4 states didn't follow their own election law and used  a faulty computer fraudulent system to tabulate votes incorrectly stealing an election maybe for a very unpopular senile crook named joe.  

Keep the Chinese puppet and pedophile family out of the white house.


----------



## Dragonlady

Turtlesoup said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't right wing loons (generally) for state's rights? Wonder how Texarse would feel if NY decided it wanted to repeal Texarse's CCW laws?
> 
> 
> 
> What laws----these 4 states didn't follow their own election law and used  a faulty computer fraudulent system to tabulate votes incorrectly stealing an election maybe for a very unpopular senile crook named joe.
> 
> Keep the Chinese puppet and pedophile family out of the white house.
Click to expand...


The Chinese puppet and pedophile family are already IN the White House.  This election was about getting the Trump Crime Family OUT of the White House.

People who aren't criminals, don't need pardons.  Trump is preparing to pardon everyone in his family and everyone in his administration.  That tells you just how criminal and corrupt the Trump Administration has been.


----------



## JLW

This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Dragonlady said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't right wing loons (generally) for state's rights? Wonder how Texarse would feel if NY decided it wanted to repeal Texarse's CCW laws?
> 
> 
> 
> What laws----these 4 states didn't follow their own election law and used  a faulty computer fraudulent system to tabulate votes incorrectly stealing an election maybe for a very unpopular senile crook named joe.
> 
> Keep the Chinese puppet and pedophile family out of the white house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Chinese puppet and pedophile family are already IN the White House.  This election was about getting the Trump Crime Family OUT of the White House.
> 
> People who aren't criminals, don't need pardons.  Trump is preparing to pardon everyone in his family and everyone in his administration.  That tells you just how criminal and corrupt the Trump Administration has been.
Click to expand...

It shows no class when you lie...

Projecting the evil that is the biden clan with the videos of them raping little girls including their own family and the money trail of them taking chinese and other bribes on the trumps who have done no such thing ---is rather disgusting.


----------



## iceberg

Dragonlady said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't right wing loons (generally) for state's rights? Wonder how Texarse would feel if NY decided it wanted to repeal Texarse's CCW laws?
> 
> 
> 
> What laws----these 4 states didn't follow their own election law and used  a faulty computer fraudulent system to tabulate votes incorrectly stealing an election maybe for a very unpopular senile crook named joe.
> 
> Keep the Chinese puppet and pedophile family out of the white house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Chinese puppet and pedophile family are already IN the White House.  This election was about getting the Trump Crime Family OUT of the White House.
> 
> People who aren't criminals, don't need pardons.  Trump is preparing to pardon everyone in his family and everyone in his administration.  That tells you just how criminal and corrupt the Trump Administration has been.
Click to expand...

I thought it was RUSSIA. 

China your new RUSSIA? 

Pathetic.


----------



## iceberg

Johnlaw said:


> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.


These states broke their own laws. 

Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?


----------



## bendog

JimBowie1958 said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas has a good case. Its on another thread on this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats why Dimbocraps let them vote, lol.
Click to expand...

Way'll Jiahm, Ah guess wea'll jus hafta see if this heayah boolshite stunt ta satisfah you rubes is gonna go anywheres


----------



## JLW

iceberg said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
Click to expand...

Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court, and further, the suit is nothing less than an attempt to repudiate the votes of millions. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other states that have followed the  corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.


----------



## iceberg

Johnlaw said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
Click to expand...

Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature. 

Please show me where these 4 states did that. 

All you gotta do.


----------



## JLW

iceberg said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
Click to expand...

Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.

All you gotta do.


----------



## iceberg

Johnlaw said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
Click to expand...

Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.

Now show me where these states followed their documented legal required process.

You can't, can you?


----------



## JLW

iceberg said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.
> 
> Now show me where these states followed their process.
> 
> You can't, can you?
Click to expand...

Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.

Show me one case where Trump won and the court ruled what the state legislatures did was illegal.

You can’t, can you?


----------



## Lesh

Turtlesoup said:


> *It shows no class when you lie...*
> 
> Projecting the evil that is the biden clan with the videos of them raping little girls including their own family and the money trail of them taking chinese and other bribes on the trumps who have done no such thing ---is rather disgusting.


You then have no class


----------



## iceberg

Johnlaw said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.
> 
> Now show me where these states followed their process.
> 
> You can't, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.
> 
> Ahiw me one case where Trump won.
> 
> You can’t, can you?
Click to expand...

This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.


----------



## Lesh

In order to sue...you have to have standing. That means that you have to show that you were harmed by an action you are seeking to litigate.

Texas has no standing. They can not show where they were harmed by how another state runs their election

*DENIED*


----------



## JLW

iceberg said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.
> 
> Now show me where these states followed their process.
> 
> You can't, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.
> 
> Ahiw me one case where Trump won.
> 
> You can’t, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.
Click to expand...

The Texas lawsuit is trash. It will dismissed out of hand.


----------



## iceberg

Johnlaw said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.
> 
> Now show me where these states followed their process.
> 
> You can't, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.
> 
> Ahiw me one case where Trump won.
> 
> You can’t, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Texas lawsuit is trash. It will dismissed out of hand.
Click to expand...

And again you refuse to say whether or not the states did what they are accused of. 

It's not hard. 

Show me 2here these states followed their own constitution. 

But you can't and won't. Just bitch. 

Aka... TROLL.


----------



## colfax_m

How desperate do you have to be to think the same accusations which have been laughed out of court dozens of times can be repackaged and rebranded and all of a sudden this time it’s going to succeed?


----------



## iceberg

colfax_m said:


> How desperate do you have to be to think the same accusations which have been laughed out of court dozens of times can be repackaged and rebranded and all of a sudden this time it’s going to succeed?


how desperate do you have to be to simply not show that the states followed their own constitution but yet you have to attack the person asking about it instead?

simply show the math of how these states followed their own constitutional process. any failure in that and any resorting to more attacks on others simply asking is your jr high way of saying you know the states did not do this but you still hope you can keep up a brave front and maybe the kid on the front row eating his boogers between your posts still believes you.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
Click to expand...

let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.

did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? if no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.

i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.


----------



## JimBowie1958

bendog said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats why Dimbocraps let them vote, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Way'll Jiahm, Ah guess wea'll jus hafta see if this heayah boolshite stunt ta satisfah you rubes is gonna go anywheres
Click to expand...

Why do Democrats do a horribly bad Southern accent when they want to patronise Southerners?

But I guess we could chalk that up beside, why do 100% of dead voters vote Democrat and all lost ballots are for Joe Buydem.


----------



## JimBowie1958

iceberg said:


> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? if no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.


It is so adorable how some conservatives talk to libtards like they actually give a flying shit about honesty, integrity or fair elections.

just adorable!


----------



## JLW

iceberg said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.
> 
> Now show me where these states followed their process.
> 
> You can't, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.
> 
> Ahiw me one case where Trump won.
> 
> You can’t, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Texas lawsuit is trash. It will dismissed out of hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again you refuse to say whether or not the states did what they are accused of.
> 
> It's not hard.
> 
> Show me 2here these states followed their own constitution.
> 
> But you can't and won't. Just bitch.
> 
> Aka... TROLL.
Click to expand...

Show me one state that lost a law suit that they did not follow their constitution?

You’re the one making the assertion. Prove  it.


----------



## NoNukes

JimBowie1958 said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? if no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
> 
> 
> 
> It is so adorable how some conservatives talk to libtards like they actually give a flying shit about honesty, integrity or fair elections.
> 
> just adorable!
Click to expand...

Hey, we talk to you as if you are not batshit crazy about the election.


----------



## iceberg

JimBowie1958 said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? if no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
> 
> 
> 
> It is so adorable how some conservatives talk to libtards like they actually give a flying shit about honesty, integrity or fair elections.
> 
> just adorable!
Click to expand...

hey sir spanks-a-lot; you conduct yourself as you see fit, and i will do the same. stop being "liberal" and telling other people how to do things.

some people are here to TRY and talk issues, not see who has the best insults. besides, when i want to be insulting, i'm pretty much one of the best but i've found that is just an endless ping pong game.


----------



## iceberg

NoNukes said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? if no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
> 
> 
> 
> It is so adorable how some conservatives talk to libtards like they actually give a flying shit about honesty, integrity or fair elections.
> 
> just adorable!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, we talk to you as if you are not batshit crazy about the election.
Click to expand...

hell man, you may wanna rethink that plan.


----------



## colfax_m

iceberg said:


> how desperate do you have to be to simply not show that the states followed their own constitution but yet you have to attack the person asking about it instead?
> 
> simply show the math of how these states followed their own constitutional process. any failure in that and any resorting to more attacks on others simply asking is your jr high way of saying you know the states did not do this but you still hope you can keep up a brave front and maybe the kid on the front row eating his boogers between your posts still believes you.


It's almost as if there's a system to determine if a state is following their own constitution.

And it has nothing to do with Texas going to SCOTUS.


----------



## iceberg

colfax_m said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> how desperate do you have to be to simply not show that the states followed their own constitution but yet you have to attack the person asking about it instead?
> 
> simply show the math of how these states followed their own constitutional process. any failure in that and any resorting to more attacks on others simply asking is your jr high way of saying you know the states did not do this but you still hope you can keep up a brave front and maybe the kid on the front row eating his boogers between your posts still believes you.
> 
> 
> 
> It's almost as if there's a system to determine if a state is following their own constitution.
> 
> And it has nothing to do with Texas going to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

and what does this have to do with anything? the Texas lawsuit has been spelled out clearly, with references, sections of the states constitutions violated and how that impacted an outcomes against what their state (and now what, 9 others) voted fairly for.

did these states or did they not follow their own constitutional process to change how people voted in this election?

a YES | NO question doesn't contain this many excuses.


----------



## mascale

One problem the Supreme Court may have is jurisdiction.  The regulation of the state elections is up to Congress, not the Supreme Court.  From one or another of various opinions.  Texas, and the Court, is expressly prohibited from interference in the state elections.
___________________________
At the Founding, the breadth of Congress’ express power to “make or alter” state regulation of federal elections was understood by supporters and detractors alike. The plain text of the Elections Clause, as James Madison explained at the Constitutional Convention, uses “words of great latitude,” recognizing that “it was impossible to foresee all the abuses that might be made of the [states’] discretionary power.” 2 RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 at 240. As Madison explained, “[w]hether the electors should vote by ballot or vivâ voce, should assemble at this place or that place; should be divided into districts or all meet in one place, shd all vote for all the representatives; 9 or all in a district vote for a number allotted to the district; these & many other points would depend on the Legislatures and might materially affect the appointments.” Id. at 240-41; see also 2 DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS at 535 (Pa.) Thus, the Framers’ understanding was that Congress would have final say over questions of balloting, location of polling places, districting, and other of “the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental right involved.” Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 366 (1932). Opponents of the Elections Clause, too, understood that the Clause gave Congress strong powers to regulate federal elections, explaining that their “great difficulty” was that “the power given by the 4th section was unlimited,” 2 DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS at 25 (Mass.), and “admits of the most dangerous latitude.” 3 id. at 175 (Va.); see also 4 id. at 55 (“[T]hey are words of very great extent. This clause provides that a Congress may at any time alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators.”) (N.C.). In the ensuing debates over ratification of the Constitution, the Elections Clause was vigorously challenged. . . .

"Crow, James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Think of Moses learning Egyptian skills and arts, per Acts 7, as a kid growing up. Arithmetic and subjugations skills were likely included. So Among the Terrorist Imperial-Intending, "Chosen People:" Of Pharaoh's Egyptian ruling Houses: Deut 23: 19-20--likely an Egyptian, local matter!)


----------



## iceberg

mascale said:


> One problem the Supreme Court may have is jurisdiction.  The regulation of the state elections is up to Congress, not the Supreme Court.  From one or another of various opinions.  Texas, and the Court, is expressly prohibited from interference in the state elections.
> ___________________________
> At the Founding, the breadth of Congress’ express power to “make or alter” state regulation of federal elections was understood by supporters and detractors alike. The plain text of the Elections Clause, as James Madison explained at the Constitutional Convention, uses “words of great latitude,” recognizing that “it was impossible to foresee all the abuses that might be made of the [states’] discretionary power.” 2 RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 at 240. As Madison explained, “[w]hether the electors should vote by ballot or vivâ voce, should assemble at this place or that place; should be divided into districts or all meet in one place, shd all vote for all the representatives; 9 or all in a district vote for a number allotted to the district; these & many other points would depend on the Legislatures and might materially affect the appointments.” Id. at 240-41; see also 2 DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS at 535 (Pa.) Thus, the Framers’ understanding was that Congress would have final say over questions of balloting, location of polling places, districting, and other of “the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental right involved.” Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 366 (1932). Opponents of the Elections Clause, too, understood that the Clause gave Congress strong powers to regulate federal elections, explaining that their “great difficulty” was that “the power given by the 4th section was unlimited,” 2 DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS at 25 (Mass.), and “admits of the most dangerous latitude.” 3 id. at 175 (Va.); see also 4 id. at 55 (“[T]hey are words of very great extent. This clause provides that a Congress may at any time alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators.”) (N.C.). In the ensuing debates over ratification of the Constitution, the Elections Clause was vigorously challenged. . . .
> 
> "Crow, James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred!"
> (Think of Moses learning Egyptian skills and arts, per Acts 7, as a kid growing up. Arithmetic and subjugations skills were likely included. So Among the Terrorist Imperial-Intending, "Chosen People:" Of Pharaoh's Egyptian ruling Houses: Deut 23: 19-20--likely an Egyptian, local matter!)


so for:

" Congress would have final say over questions of balloting, location of polling places, districting, and other of “the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental right involved.”"

then the states congress would have the final say on whether or not the states voting processes can, should, or will be changed.

great. now; did they in the states listed in the suit? did they make the changes or did OTHER PARTIES force it through?


----------



## colfax_m

iceberg said:


> and what does this have to do with anything? the Texas lawsuit has been spelled out clearly, with references, sections of the states constitutions violated and how that impacted an outcomes against what their state (and now what, 9 others) voted fairly for.
> 
> did these states or did they not follow their own constitutional process to change how people voted in this election?
> 
> a YES | NO question doesn't contain this many excuses.


It has everything to do with it. Texas has no grounds to sue these states to force them to do anything. It's completely without merit.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

iceberg said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a duck farting on a frozen pond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the duck farting on a frozen pond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My God this is original.
> 
> Rush back to recess and get your high 5s.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes.  The old_ I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I....I'm-rubber-you're-glu_e response.


----------



## iceberg

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a duck farting on a frozen pond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the duck farting on a frozen pond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My God this is original.
> 
> Rush back to recess and get your high 5s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, yes.  The old_ I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I....I'm-rubber-you're-glu_e response.
Click to expand...

i am over here trying to get creative and best gumpybear can do is copy my jokes.

pretty sad man.


----------



## Mac-7

Lesh said:


> One state can not sue another state over how that state runs its elections.


That shows how little you know


----------



## RealDave

martybegan said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not. There have been no illegal changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US constitution says State legislatures set the rules for Presidential elector selection, and thus the elections. State judges can't override that.
Click to expand...

Marty thinks that a Republican legislature can pass a law that said democrats votes don 't get counted.


----------



## Pete7469

JimBowie1958 said:


> It is so adorable how some conservatives talk to libtards like they actually give a flying shit about honesty, integrity or fair elections.
> 
> just adorable!



I applaud the efforts.

I do of course see the futility of it when it comes to "changing" whatever sphincter functions as a bed wetter's "mind", because they have no frontal lobe. However I'm sure there are people who do read these posts and actually form opinions based on the information.

I'm just a fuckin troll though, and get my kicks insulting vacuous liberal jabbering retards. I have to add context and facts in relation to the topic just to stay within the rules, but I am aware that the bed wetters do not allow facts to penetrate their deliberate ignorance. They want Trump gone. It matters not to them how that objective is met. It doesn't even matter to these sniveling submissive parasites that Trump was a self proclaimed democrook pretty much until the meat puppet faggot was elected.


----------



## colfax_m

Mac-7 said:


> That shows how little you know


It's actually a big problem. Are you aware of this ever happening before?


----------



## martybegan

RealDave said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not. There have been no illegal changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US constitution says State legislatures set the rules for Presidential elector selection, and thus the elections. State judges can't override that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marty thinks that a Republican legislature can pass a law that said democrats votes don 't get counted.
Click to expand...


No, I am saying, and Texas is saying that State Executives and Judiciaries can't change election laws themselves, that the Constitution gives that sole power to the State Legislatures.


----------



## iceberg

Pete7469 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is so adorable how some conservatives talk to libtards like they actually give a flying shit about honesty, integrity or fair elections.
> 
> just adorable!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I applaud the efforts.
> 
> I do of course see the futility of it when it comes to "changing" whatever sphincter functions as a bed wetter's "mind", because they have no frontal lobe. However I'm sure there are people who do read these posts and actually form opinions based on the information.
> 
> I'm just a fuckin troll though, and get my kicks insulting vacuous liberal jabbering retards. I have to add context and facts in relation to the topic just to stay within the rules, but I am aware that the bed wetters do not allow facts to penetrate their deliberate ignorance. They want Trump gone. It matters not to them how that objective is met. It doesn't even matter to these sniveling submissive parasites that Trump was a self proclaimed democrook pretty much until the meat puppet faggot was elected.
Click to expand...

well it really comes down to - what do i want out of this forum. 

1. insult the other side because they're stupid
2. try and talk current events and issues outside of the personal hate wagons bantered about.

you can't do #2 cause everyone is stuck on #1 and this sounds like a HORRIBLE bathroom experience.

people get so caught up in the 1st option that they *think* others are here for the same reasons. or they just don't care; insult and mock. insult and mock. insult and mock. take a lunch break. insult and mock the rest of the day.

all they know and all they do.

i can't get too upset, i used to do the same thing. if someone *tried* to talk seriously i'd return the favor but i'd not look for it usually; just show how creative i am; esp in my drinking days.

but people don't want honesty these days in as much as emotional validation. i hate this person so all they do is wrong and i will make sure the world knows. trouble is, this is based on opinions people decide to make facts to justify such strong emotions.

when you try to reason with them, they take it as an attack.

so if someone is actually trying to talk issues, i want to dive in and talk issues too. it's pretty much a given anymore roughly half the country will hate the other half but i don't like that state we're in. how do you change that?

insult them cause they're stupid? or have the patience to keep trying to rebuild that middle ground in hopes people tire of hating so much and can find room for something else in their hearts and minds.

i got better things to do than simply lob insults for 30k+ posts. even if those better things are crash on the floor with my dog and watch bar rescue marathons.

people will get tired of the hate on their own terms, i suppose. it certainly won't be when they get what they want cause even if you do, there will be something else to hate next. why? cause that's the dog you're feeding.

i've just chosen to feed my other "dogs".


----------



## DrLove

CowboyTed said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course - Texas has every right to change election laws in all 57 states because, you know ... TEXAS!
> Good lord, when will Republicans stop embarrassing themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will make them pay for it?
> 
> Their voters?? Nope...
> 
> They are embarrassing themselves for their voters....
> 
> and when this is said and done, I guarantee you that these folks will get pissed if you ever remind them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you would prefer the people nationwide to pay for those States' "right" to defraud the the rest of the rest the United States. Voting fraud affects *all* Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allegations of fraud with no evidence shouldn't affect any Americans....
> 
> We are weeks now of the allegations of fraud... Where is the evidence... Evidence that will stand up in court...
> 
> Where is it?
> 
> No messages of 'it is coming' or 'it is everywhere'... Accusing people of a crime and having no evidence is a crime in itself...*
Click to expand...


Sounds like you are as sick of this as I am and the judges are. That idiot AG in Texas now claims 80 million fraudulent votes with no evidence. They pull this crap out of their ass and expect people to enjoy the scent. It's beyond ridiculous.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

colfax_m said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what does this have to do with anything? the Texas lawsuit has been spelled out clearly, with references, sections of the states constitutions violated and how that impacted an outcomes against what their state (and now what, 9 others) voted fairly for.
> 
> did these states or did they not follow their own constitutional process to change how people voted in this election?
> 
> a YES | NO question doesn't contain this many excuses.
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it. Texas has no grounds to sue these states to force them to do anything. It's completely without merit.
Click to expand...

Have you read the pleadings?  

Your response indicates that you haven't, but if you have, I want to hear what legal authority you are relying on to counter that argued by Texas.

*Complaint*








What's your response?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

martybegan said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not. There have been no illegal changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US constitution says State legislatures set the rules for Presidential elector selection, and thus the elections. State judges can't override that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marty thinks that a Republican legislature can pass a law that said democrats votes don 't get counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am saying, and Texas is saying that State Executives and Judiciaries can't change election laws themselves, that the Constitution gives that sole power to the State Legislatures.
Click to expand...

And failure to do so has an impact on the voters in other states.


----------



## iceberg

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what does this have to do with anything? the Texas lawsuit has been spelled out clearly, with references, sections of the states constitutions violated and how that impacted an outcomes against what their state (and now what, 9 others) voted fairly for.
> 
> did these states or did they not follow their own constitutional process to change how people voted in this election?
> 
> a YES | NO question doesn't contain this many excuses.
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it. Texas has no grounds to sue these states to force them to do anything. It's completely without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you read the pleadings?
> 
> Your response indicates that you haven't, but if you have, I want to hear what legal authority you are relying on to counter that argued by Texas.
> 
> *Complaint*
> 
> View attachment 426963
> View attachment 426964
> 
> What's your response?
Click to expand...

his response will be an insult to you. i've avoided replying in kind and have sticked to asking him to provide the path these states took that was proper according to their own constitution.

he POOF'd.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Jesus. Elections are a state matter. They are governed by THAT STATES laws and adjudicated by that states court system.
> 
> One state can not sue another state over how that state runs its elections.
> 
> This is beyond silly. I mean worthy of Rudy Toot Toot silly


I'll pose the same question to you.

Have you read the pleadings?  








*Texas SCOTUS Complaint*

What is your response to this and on what legal authority are you relying?


----------



## Toro

JimBowie1958 said:


> It is so adorable how some conservatives talk to libtards like they actually give a flying shit about honesty, integrity or fair elections.
> 
> just adorable!



Yeah, it is pretty funny that some conservatards pretend they actually give a flying shit about honesty, integrity or fair elections.

Because cult.  

In the meantime, Trumptards are 1-52 in court.






And 0 cases of fraud proven in court.

You loons are on the planet of orange crazy.


----------



## Dragonlady

iceberg said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't right wing loons (generally) for state's rights? Wonder how Texarse would feel if NY decided it wanted to repeal Texarse's CCW laws?
> 
> 
> 
> What laws----these 4 states didn't follow their own election law and used  a faulty computer fraudulent system to tabulate votes incorrectly stealing an election maybe for a very unpopular senile crook named joe.
> 
> Keep the Chinese puppet and pedophile family out of the white house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Chinese puppet and pedophile family are already IN the White House.  This election was about getting the Trump Crime Family OUT of the White House.
> 
> People who aren't criminals, don't need pardons.  Trump is preparing to pardon everyone in his family and everyone in his administration.  That tells you just how criminal and corrupt the Trump Administration has been.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought it was RUSSIA.
> 
> China your new RUSSIA?
> 
> Pathetic.
Click to expand...


Nice attempt at deflection, but really, it's any authoritarian regime in the world.  Trump has cozied up to all of them:  Turkey, North Korea, China, Russia, Poland.  Trump has snubbed allies and democratic states, and given all sorts of aid and comfort to the dictators.

You rail against the rapid expansion of Chinese influence throughout the world, but look how Trump has increased trade and power for China.  When Trump pulled out of the Trans Pacific Partnership, relinguishing the role of Lead Nation in the TPP, China joined the TPP and took the role of the Lead Nation which Trump vacated, increasing worldwide trade with China, and opening up new markets for them.  Big win for China.

When Trump issued tariffs against Chinese goods, China retailated by cancelling billions of dollars of agricultural orders, mainly soybeans purchased from mid-Western farmers.  The American taxpayers are STILL paying subsidies to these farmers for their loss of business.  Big loss for American taxpayers.  But China still needed to buy soybeans, so they contracted with farmers in Argentina and Brazil.  China still bought the soy beans, but now they have expanded their trade to South America, which makes them a major trading partner with cash strapped South American countries.  Big win for China.

In order to better serve their Chinese markets, China is using their huge trade surplus with the rest of the world, to fund the construction of deep sea ports along the Pacific coast of South America, and the Indian Ocean ports along the African coastline, to facilitate the big transport ships handling all of this big trade with China.  The Chinese call it the "Silk Road Trade Route".  HUGE FUCKING WIN FOR CHINA.

All of these wins for China came directly out of the Trump Presidency.  You now have no trade deal with China, because Trump tore them all up.  China is basically taking over world trade, because Donald Trump tore up all of the trade deals that made the USA the richest nation in the world.  You have NAFTA 2.0, a deal with South Korea, and a deal with Japan, none of which are much different than the past. 

After 2008, the world began disentangling itself from the USA, and we all started building our own trade alliances.  The NATO Partners are actively discussing a new security alliances which eliminates the USA, because your government has become too unstable.  

So yes, by all means continue to believe that the military alliances which kept the world at peace for 70 years, were "unfair" to the USA, and the trade deals which made the USA the richest nation on earth were "taking advantage" of Americans.  

Donald Trump just gave away the farm to China, quite literally, and you're worried about what Biden will allow China to do?  That's closing the gate after the rustlers have left with your cattle.


----------



## BlindBoo

iceberg said:


> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.



Here's one that went through the legislature.

*Harrisburg, PA* – Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with voter-friendly election reforms. 









						Governor Wolf Signs Election Reform Bill Including New Mail-in Voting
					

Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with...




					www.governor.pa.gov


----------



## Mac-7

colfax_m said:


> Are you aware of this ever happening before?


no

this is historic


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

colfax_m said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That shows how little you know
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually a big problem. Are you aware of this ever happening before?
Click to expand...

What's your response?  I have given you the portions of the complaint giving Texas et al standing.


----------



## colfax_m

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> What's your response?


No one is debasing or diluting Texas's votes. For starters, dilution is impossible since each state's electors are set and no one is getting more or less electors than the constitution lays out.

Second, debasement of electors is irrelevant. Each states is granted authority to determine their own methods of selecting electors. Texas's votes can not be debased by the actions of someone else's votes.


----------



## iceberg

Dragonlady said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't right wing loons (generally) for state's rights? Wonder how Texarse would feel if NY decided it wanted to repeal Texarse's CCW laws?
> 
> 
> 
> What laws----these 4 states didn't follow their own election law and used  a faulty computer fraudulent system to tabulate votes incorrectly stealing an election maybe for a very unpopular senile crook named joe.
> 
> Keep the Chinese puppet and pedophile family out of the white house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Chinese puppet and pedophile family are already IN the White House.  This election was about getting the Trump Crime Family OUT of the White House.
> 
> People who aren't criminals, don't need pardons.  Trump is preparing to pardon everyone in his family and everyone in his administration.  That tells you just how criminal and corrupt the Trump Administration has been.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought it was RUSSIA.
> 
> China your new RUSSIA?
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice attempt at deflection, but really, it's any authoritarian regime in the world.  Trump has cozied up to all of them:  Turkey, North Korea, China, Russia, Poland.  Trump has snubbed allies and democratic states, and given all sorts of aid and comfort to the dictators.
> 
> You rail against the rapid expansion of Chinese influence throughout the world, but look how Trump has increased trade and power for China.  When Trump pulled out of the Trans Pacific Partnership, relinguishing the role of Lead Nation in the TPP, China joined the TPP and took the role of the Lead Nation which Trump vacated, increasing worldwide trade with China, and opening up new markets for them.  Big win for China.
> 
> When Trump issued tariffs against Chinese goods, China retailated by cancelling billions of dollars of agricultural orders, mainly soybeans purchased from mid-Western farmers.  The American taxpayers are STILL paying subsidies to these farmers for their loss of business.  Big loss for American taxpayers.  But China still needed to buy soybeans, so they contracted with farmers in Argentina and Brazil.  China still bought the soy beans, but now they have expanded their trade to South America, which makes them a major trading partner with cash strapped South American countries.  Big win for China.
> 
> In order to better serve their Chinese markets, China is using their huge trade surplus with the rest of the world, to fund the construction of deep sea ports along the Pacific coast of South America, and the Indian Ocean ports along the African coastline, to facilitate the big transport ships handling all of this big trade with China.  The Chinese call it the "Silk Road Trade Route".  HUGE FUCKING WIN FOR CHINA.
> 
> All of these wins for China came directly out of the Trump Presidency.  You now have no trade deal with China, because Trump tore them all up.  China is basically taking over world trade, because Donald Trump tore up all of the trade deals that made the USA the richest nation in the world.  You have NAFTA 2.0, a deal with South Korea, and a deal with Japan, none of which are much different than the past.
> 
> After 2008, the world began disentangling itself from the USA, and we all started building our own trade alliances.  The NATO Partners are actively discussing a new security alliances which eliminates the USA, because your government has become too unstable.
> 
> So yes, by all means continue to believe that the military alliances which kept the world at peace for 70 years, were "unfair" to the USA, and the trade deals which made the USA the richest nation on earth were "taking advantage" of Americans.
> 
> Donald Trump just gave away the farm to China, quite literally, and you're worried about what Biden will allow China to do?  That's closing the gate after the rustlers have left with your cattle.
Click to expand...

oh.

it's you again.

i farted.

bye.


----------



## colfax_m

iceberg said:


> he POOF'd.


There was no "poof". All I said is that you asked an irrelevant question. There is a process for determining if a state has followed their own constitution. That process was already followed.


----------



## iceberg

BlindBoo said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one that went through the legislature.
> 
> *Harrisburg, PA* – Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with voter-friendly election reforms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Governor Wolf Signs Election Reform Bill Including New Mail-in Voting
> 
> 
> Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.governor.pa.gov
Click to expand...

and that was pre-covid. what did PA do *after* covid to change their systems?

nice try but i'm not chasing your turds down the toilet. please stick to the lawsuit.


----------



## iceberg

colfax_m said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your response?
> 
> 
> 
> No one is debasing or diluting Texas's votes. For starters, dilution is impossible since each state's electors are set and no one is getting more or less electors than the constitution lays out.
> 
> Second, debasement of electors is irrelevant. Each states is granted authority to determine their own methods of selecting electors. Texas's votes can not be debased by the actions of someone else's votes.
Click to expand...

If Texas votes for Trump and these (4) states were doing the same until these "voting changes" were implemented, then it does in fact impact the "will of the people" of all states.

and electors is not the case here. the states changing the rules of voting outside of legislative process is.

deflect king at it again.


----------



## Toro




----------



## colfax_m

iceberg said:


> If Texas votes for Trump and these (4) states were doing the same until these "voting changes" were implemented, then it does in fact impact the "will of the people" of all states.
> 
> and electors is not the case here. the states changing the rules of voting outside of legislative process is.
> 
> deflect king at it again.


How does any action of Pennsylvania affect the "will of the people" of Texas to select their electors?

Go on. Explain that.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

colfax_m said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your response?
> 
> 
> 
> No one is debasing or diluting Texas's votes. For starters, dilution is impossible since each state's electors are set and no one is getting more or less electors than the constitution lays out.
> 
> Second, debasement of electors is irrelevant. Each states is granted authority to determine their own methods of selecting electors. Texas's votes can not be debased by the actions of someone else's votes.
Click to expand...

Oh, so your legal argument amounts to...._nuh-uh_...



> Second, debasement of electors is irrelevant.


So, you're just going to completely IGNORE _Anderson v. Celebrezze_, 460 U.S. 780, 795 (1983)?

BRILLIANT!!!

Just ignore the cited precedent and bring no other legal authority as a basis for your response.  That works.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

colfax_m said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Texas votes for Trump and these (4) states were doing the same until these "voting changes" were implemented, then it does in fact impact the "will of the people" of all states.
> 
> and electors is not the case here. the states changing the rules of voting outside of legislative process is.
> 
> deflect king at it again.
> 
> 
> 
> How does any action of Pennsylvania affect the "will of the people" of Texas to select their electors?
> 
> Go on. Explain that.
Click to expand...

_Anderson v. Celebrezze_, 460 U.S. 780, 795 (1983) 

You fucking suck at this.


----------



## colfax_m

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, you're just going to completely IGNORE _Anderson v. Celebrezze_, 460 U.S. 780, 795 (1983)?


Go on. What does this decision have to do with the topic at hand. Please, mail the argument.


----------



## iceberg

colfax_m said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Texas votes for Trump and these (4) states were doing the same until these "voting changes" were implemented, then it does in fact impact the "will of the people" of all states.
> 
> and electors is not the case here. the states changing the rules of voting outside of legislative process is.
> 
> deflect king at it again.
> 
> 
> 
> How does any action of Pennsylvania affect the "will of the people" of Texas to select their electors?
> 
> Go on. Explain that.
Click to expand...

explain where i was talking about the electors vs. the states going outside their own constitutional process.

you just keep hitting balls around hoping no one will try to pin you down. but every time i ask for something very specific, you run like forest gump.


----------



## colfax_m

iceberg said:


> explain where i was talking about the electors vs. the states going outside their own constitutional process.


The lawsuit is talking about the electors. Are you going off on your own tangent or are you discussing the lawsuit?


----------



## bripat9643

busybee01 said:


> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks have mentioned it, but it is worth repeating.  There are two possibilities to settle the vote fraud cases, assuming nothing crazy happens, and in both cases President Trump wins.
> 
> 1) The states with the obvious voter fraud are actually controlled by Republican legislatures and since there is no way to sort out the mail in ballots and other voter fraud, the state legislatures will give their state Electoral votes for President Trump.
> 
> 2) The states with the obvious voter fraud fail to respond with an alternative by Thursday, thus the House votes with each state getting a vote.  Since there are more Republican states, President Trump will get more House votes and thus be re-elected.  MAGA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. No voter fraud has been proven. What you want is for state legislatures to overturn the will of the people.
> 
> 2. Since there was no voter fraud, they don't have to come up with anything. There is no such provision in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

When will you turds stop bleating the obvious lie that no voter fraud has been proven?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

BlindBoo said:


> Here's one that went through the legislature.


Making it easier to cheat and commit election fraud. What a wonderful advance for election security.
Democrats lead the way once again.


----------



## Lesh

IF...the SC accepts this insanity...it will allow any state to challenge how any other state runs their elections.

In essence it will force a national election law.

That's not likely to happen


----------



## Care4all

CrusaderFrank said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever read the articles?  Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?
Click to expand...

Yeah, and is was one of the things the Texas case said was an irregularity or illegal.

The SC won't take the case is my bet, or take it for some time down the road, where the people's choice of Biden is not affected.

The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.

Texans voted, Texans appointed their electors.  What another state does is none of their bee's wax, according to the constitution.... imo.  The people of those 4 states chose Biden, by landslides in most of them....there is no ambiguity.  The laws tweaked by the court rulings, truly matters naught...Biden, was chosen by their citizens to be our next president, in good faith....  they followed the election laws they were told were legal.


----------



## iceberg

colfax_m said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain where i was talking about the electors vs. the states going outside their own constitutional process.
> 
> 
> 
> The lawsuit is talking about the electors. Are you going off on your own tangent or are you discussing the lawsuit?
Click to expand...

the lawsuit is about these states not following their outlined constitutional process. the electors is a remedy.

now - you keep avoiding this part of the convo and running away like a little schoolgirl -

show me where these states followed their own documented process to make the changes they did in fact make.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Lesh said:


> IF...the SC accepts this insanity...it will allow any state to challenge how any other state runs their elections.
> 
> In essence it will force a national election law.
> 
> That's not likely to happen


Not all the case. Keep flailing.


----------



## iceberg

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF...the SC accepts this insanity...it will allow any state to challenge how any other state runs their elections.
> 
> In essence it will force a national election law.
> 
> That's not likely to happen
> 
> 
> 
> Not all the case. Keep flailing.
Click to expand...

yea, he misses the point that the suit isn't telling them how to run their elections, it's telling them they must follow their constitutional process to do so.


----------



## bripat9643

Care4all said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever read the articles?  Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and is was one of the things the Texas case said was an irregularity or illegal.
> 
> The SC won't take the case is my bet, or take it for some time down the road, where the people's choice of Biden is not affected.
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
Click to expand...


Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.



Care4all said:


> Texans voted, Texans appointed their electors.  What another state does is none of their bee's wax, according to the constitution.... imo.  The people of those 4 states chose Biden, by landslides in most of them....there is no ambiguity.  The laws tweaked by the court rulings, truly matters naught...Biden, was chosen by their citizens to be our next president, in good faith....  they followed the election laws they were told were legal.


Your opinion isn't worth shit.  So if another state approves slavery, that's none of your business?  You realize that your fucking stupid, don't you?


----------



## iceberg

Care4all said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever read the articles?  Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and is was one of the things the Texas case said was an irregularity or illegal.
> 
> The SC won't take the case is my bet, or take it for some time down the road, where the people's choice of Biden is not affected.
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> Texans voted, Texans appointed their electors.  What another state does is none of their bee's wax, according to the constitution.... imo.  The people of those 4 states chose Biden, by landslides in most of them....there is no ambiguity.  The laws tweaked by the court rulings, truly matters naught...Biden, was chosen by their citizens to be our next president, in good faith....  they followed the election laws they were told were legal.
Click to expand...

hurt is your point of view.

what you are advocating is - if you really really want something, fuck the laws. do it. bypass checks and balances and get it done.

and we wonder why we're so lawless these days.


----------



## BlindBoo

iceberg said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one that went through the legislature.
> 
> *Harrisburg, PA* – Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with voter-friendly election reforms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Governor Wolf Signs Election Reform Bill Including New Mail-in Voting
> 
> 
> Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.governor.pa.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and that was pre-covid. what did PA do *after* covid to change their systems?
> 
> nice try but i'm not chasing your turds down the toilet. please stick to the lawsuit.
Click to expand...


The new law passed by the Legislature is at the heart of the issues in PA.  If you don't understand those you're just pissing in the wind.

"Consider the scenario in which it was used for the first time in a general election: during a public health crisis, with record voter turnout, and in a battleground state facing the ire of a president determined to undermine the voting process and spread misinformation.

“This was very much the perfect storm of the implementation of the new voting law in Pennsylvania,” said Suzanne Almeida, the former interim executive director and current counsel at the good-government group Common Cause Pennsylvania. “It was not perfect, but votes happened and they got counted and we have an outcome.”









						Pandemic, partisan attacks exposed gaps in Pa.’s new mail-in voting law
					

While many lawmakers agree changes are needed, finding common ground in the current hyper-partisan climate might be impossible.




					www.inquirer.com
				




The extenuating circumstances did, however, magnify gaps in a law that was supposed to make voting easier. Those holes regarding “cured” ballots and signature matching then had to be filled through guidance from the Department of State, which prompted court challenges and opened the door for some Republicans — from President Donald Trump to state and local lawmakers — to launch unsubstantiated claims that the executive and judicial branches were attempting to swing the election in favor of Democrat Joe Biden.
“Any of these areas where the secretary has had to make a call that has then been questioned by the legislature are, in my mind, faults of not having clear statutory guidance,” said Daniel Mallinson, an assistant professor of public policy and administration at Penn State Harrisburg.


----------



## colfax_m

iceberg said:


> the lawsuit is about these states not following their outlined constitutional process. the electors is a remedy.
> 
> now - you keep avoiding this part of the convo and running away like a little schoolgirl -
> 
> show me where these states followed their own documented process to make the changes they did in fact make.


You're referring to their constitutional process for deciding electors. So yeah, this is essential to the court case.


----------



## iceberg

colfax_m said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> the lawsuit is about these states not following their outlined constitutional process. the electors is a remedy.
> 
> now - you keep avoiding this part of the convo and running away like a little schoolgirl -
> 
> show me where these states followed their own documented process to make the changes they did in fact make.
> 
> 
> 
> You're referring to their constitutional process for deciding electors. So yeah, this is essential to the court case.
Click to expand...

ok fine.

now please show me how these states followed their own documented and legally binding process to make the changes they did.

i've asked 4 times and you keep diverting.


----------



## postman

Care4all said:


> The SC won't take the case is my bet, or take it for some time down the road, where the people's choice of Biden is not affected.



The supreme court has until Tuesday to either do something, or the entire case becomes moot.  Once the electors vote, there is no constitutional way to change what happens after that.

The safe harbor makes the EC vote not subject to debate.


----------



## colfax_m

iceberg said:


> ok fine.
> 
> now please show me how these states followed their own documented and legally binding process to make the changes they did.
> 
> i've asked 4 times and you keep diverting.


This is about the Texas lawsuit, and the first hurdle that needs to be addressed is whether Texas is following a constitutional process for challenging the way other states chose their electors.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

colfax_m said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're just going to completely IGNORE _Anderson v. Celebrezze_, 460 U.S. 780, 795 (1983)?
> 
> 
> 
> Go on. What does this decision have to do with the topic at hand. Please, mail the argument.
Click to expand...








The impact of votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast for the various candidate in other States.  See also the Mass. v. EPA case on standing.  

Thus, the State of Texas has an interest in protecting its voters from such impact, especially one that violates the Electors Clause and very recent precedent surrounding its interpretation.

Now, what the fuck is your bullshit response?


----------



## BlindBoo

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one that went through the legislature.
> 
> 
> 
> Making it easier to cheat and commit election fraud. What a wonderful advance for election security.
> Democrats lead the way once again.
Click to expand...


Republican controlled legislature passed the bill.

Btw in MI it was the people who voted for Mail in ballots in 2018.  By referendum.  A power delegated to them, by guess who......


----------



## Lesh

iceberg said:


> yea, he misses the point that the suit isn't telling them how to run their elections,* it's telling them they must follow their constitutional process to do so.*


According to Texas.

Incidentally Texas ALSO bypassed their legislature in changing election rules.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

iceberg said:


> yea, he misses the point that the suit isn't telling them how to run their elections, it's telling them they must follow their constitutional process to do so.


Lying, muddying the waters, leading ignorant dupes astray.

Even as their ship goes down.


----------



## iceberg

Lesh said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> yea, he misses the point that the suit isn't telling them how to run their elections,* it's telling them they must follow their constitutional process to do so.*
> 
> 
> 
> According to Texas.
> 
> Incidentally Texas ALSO bypassed their legislature in changing election rules.
Click to expand...

so you view following constitutional process as "optional"

is that your argument? please, this will be fun.


----------



## postman

bripat9643 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
Click to expand...

You can apply equal protection when your state has been given affirmative action.

You have a state which gets 1.2 EC votes for every million citizens, arguing equal protection with a state which gets 1.8 EC votes for every million citizens.


----------



## DrLove

I have now figured out why Paxton the likely securities fraudster is filing a lawsuit that is DOA at SCOTUS. He wants a pardon for Rump and this is a great way to get his attention as a loyalist. 

Appointed prosecutors who have been pursuing felony securities fraud charges against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for five years are researching new allegations that Paxton committed crimes in office.​​If Paxton gets charged with new crimes, the prosecutors would seek to revoke his bond.​​Seven of the top executives in the Texas Office of the Attorney General have reported to a law enforcement agency that Paxton violated a law that prohibits improper influence, abuse of office, bribery and other potential crimes, the Austin American-Statesman reported on Oct. 3.​​“We’re making contact with the individuals involved to determine what exactly happened and what evidence exists that suggests he was involved in misconduct,” said Kent Schaffer, one of the appointed prosecutors in Paxton’s pending case.​​If Paxton does get charged with new criminal offenses, the prosecutors in his current felony case would file a motion to revoke Paxton’s bond, explained Schaffer, partner in Schaffer & Carter in Houston.​​“When you’re under indictment in a felony case and you’re on bond, if you get a new violation, then your bond can be revoked and you can be held without bond,” he noted. “I’m not saying it’s going to happen. So far, we don’t have any evidence. He is not charged in a new case.”​








						Texas AG Ken Paxton, on Bond for Securities Fraud Charges, Faces Jail if Charged With New Crimes | Texas Lawyer
					

Seven high-ranking lawyers in the Texas Office of the Attorney General have alleged that Ken Paxton committed crimes in office. If he's charged, prosecutors in Paxton's pending securities fraud case would seek to revoke his bond.




					www.law.com


----------



## Roudy

K9Buck said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doc7505 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Don’t Mess with Texas!
> Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures*
> *Texas goes directly to the Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to order these swing states with voting irregularities to allow their legislatures to appoint presidential electors.*​
> Don't Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures | The Stream
> 8 Dec 2020 ~~ By Al Perrotta
> ~[snip]~
> 
> Just before midnight, the State of Texas threw its massive weight into the election fraud fight. Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds their ad-hoc changes to election procedures were unconstitutional. And as a result, violated the rights of Texans and those in other states that followed the constitution. Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
> What’s more, Texas isn’t fiddling around with lower courts. They marched straight to the Supreme Court. And they are requesting the Supreme Court order the offending states to allow their legislatures to appoint their presidential electors.
> *Dodging State Legislatures Was Dodgy*
> Breitbart was the first major outlet with the story, and breaks down the argument the Lone Star State is making.
> Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.​In their lawsuit, Texas claims “certain officials in the Defendant States” presented the COVID pandemic “as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in balloting.” As streiff at RedState noted, “there’s no pandemic escape hatch in the constitution.”
> ~[snip]~
> *Going to the Supreme Court…a Long Shot, Perhaps*
> Texas approached the Supreme Court directly, Breitbart reports, “because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.”
> Is the Supreme Court going to hear the case? Twitchy has collected the early reaction of legal types, and the consensus seems to be it’s a long shot the Supreme Court will hear the case, let alone rule in Texas’ favor. Several commentators note that the suit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, not the state’s solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who would be the go-to person for suits like this.
> 
> 
> Comment:
> The  Roberts court will either determine that it's none of Texas' business how other states do stuff or that the legistlatures were in session and aware of the changes and did not act, therefore they are implicitly the method determined by the legislature to be appropriate and so once again, buzz of Texas.
> This case doesn’t require evidence, it hangs upon the law being changed illegally, before the election.
> Every American voter in is being disenfranchised in this National Election by the States who were grossly negligent in their duties to conduct a free and fair election.
> All States, who abided by their State Election Rules, should join with Texas and take the scoundrels to court.
> 
> 
> 
> Big Texas Dick slams down on the table.
> 
> Everybody else knows what's at stake:
> https://tnm.me/news/tnm-news/major-announcement-texit-legislation-filed-for-next-legislative-session
> This is a not-so-veiled threat.
> 
> The SCOTUS ordered a response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent of a fly pattern at the end of the fourth quarter.   You can tell from today's SCOTUS ruling that they're not going to step in this shit.  I place the blame on Trump's campaign advisors, they should have seen this coming a mile away and preempted it.  We had a seriously defective candidate in Joe Biden hiding in the basement..this was a concerted effort at stealing this election across many states, the Democrats had placed their foot soldiers in various Democrat run cities and states and were preparing or should I say conspiring for this fraud for over 6 months, including how to cover their tracks.  You gotta hand it to them they basically carried out an "Ocean's 11" of US elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Half the country and half the people on this forum are hellbent on turning the U.S. into a fascist, Chinese-style, one-party, oligarchy controlled by the Democratic Party.  It's hard to preserve a nation when half its populace want to destroy it.
Click to expand...

Of course the leaders and elites are to blame.  This has been going on for a long time on the Left.  Brainwashed youth graduate from schools, where they are further indoctrinated in colleges dominated by like minded radical Leftists, and from there they move on to work in the media, as politicians, attorneys, etc.  And every generation they get even more radicalized.


----------



## Care4all

bripat9643 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever read the articles?  Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and is was one of the things the Texas case said was an irregularity or illegal.
> 
> The SC won't take the case is my bet, or take it for some time down the road, where the people's choice of Biden is not affected.
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texans voted, Texans appointed their electors.  What another state does is none of their bee's wax, according to the constitution.... imo.  The people of those 4 states chose Biden, by landslides in most of them....there is no ambiguity.  The laws tweaked by the court rulings, truly matters naught...Biden, was chosen by their citizens to be our next president, in good faith....  they followed the election laws they were told were legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion isn't worth shit.  So if another state approves slavery, that's none of your business?  You realize that your fucking stupid, don't you?
Click to expand...

There was no fraud that affected the results of the election.

The Texas etc lawsuit makes no mention of fraud?


----------



## bripat9643

postman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can apply equal protection when your state has been given affirmative action.
> 
> You have a state which gets 1.2 EC votes for every million citizens, arguing equal protection with a state which gets 1.8 EC votes for every million citizens.
Click to expand...

You can't claim the Constitution is unconstitutional, moron.


----------



## postman

BlindBoo said:


> The new law passed by the Legislature is at the heart of the issues in PA.  If you don't understand those you're just pissing in the wind.
> 
> "Consider the scenario in which it was used for the first time in a general election: during a public health crisis, with record voter turnout, and in a battleground state facing the ire of a president determined to undermine the voting process and spread misinformation.



Add to that, the very same process was used for the primary elections, without objection.  And the only objection made, was because they lost.


----------



## colfax_m

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Thus, the State of Texas has an interest in protecting its voters from such impact, especially one that violates the Electors Clause and very recent precedent surrounding its interpretation.


Fascinating. What impact did any of these states have on Texas's voters that it is seeking to protect them from?

You don't actually understand this argument, do you?


----------



## bripat9643

Care4all said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever read the articles?  Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and is was one of the things the Texas case said was an irregularity or illegal.
> 
> The SC won't take the case is my bet, or take it for some time down the road, where the people's choice of Biden is not affected.
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texans voted, Texans appointed their electors.  What another state does is none of their bee's wax, according to the constitution.... imo.  The people of those 4 states chose Biden, by landslides in most of them....there is no ambiguity.  The laws tweaked by the court rulings, truly matters naught...Biden, was chosen by their citizens to be our next president, in good faith....  they followed the election laws they were told were legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion isn't worth shit.  So if another state approves slavery, that's none of your business?  You realize that your fucking stupid, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no fraud that affected the results of the election.
> 
> The Texas etc lawsuit makes no mention of fraud?
Click to expand...

There most certainly was.  That has been demonstrated over and over again.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

BlindBoo said:


> Republican controlled legislature passed the bill.


So what?



> Btw in MI it was the people who voted for Mail in ballots in 2018. By referendum. A power delegated to them, by guess who......


Again, so what? The bottom line is states can't make changes to their voting rules leading up to
an election without involving their legislatures.


----------



## iceberg

Care4all said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever read the articles?  Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and is was one of the things the Texas case said was an irregularity or illegal.
> 
> The SC won't take the case is my bet, or take it for some time down the road, where the people's choice of Biden is not affected.
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texans voted, Texans appointed their electors.  What another state does is none of their bee's wax, according to the constitution.... imo.  The people of those 4 states chose Biden, by landslides in most of them....there is no ambiguity.  The laws tweaked by the court rulings, truly matters naught...Biden, was chosen by their citizens to be our next president, in good faith....  they followed the election laws they were told were legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion isn't worth shit.  So if another state approves slavery, that's none of your business?  You realize that your fucking stupid, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no fraud that affected the results of the election.
> 
> The Texas etc lawsuit makes no mention of fraud?
Click to expand...

well if this is as billed, THE MOST SECURE ELECTION EVA, then how could there have been any fraud at all?

man you just say shit without even seeing how they fit together.


----------



## Roudy

Penelope said:


> Tramp is a loser , he will go down as the worst Potus in the US.
> 
> Obama will go down as one of the best.


Or....Obama was so catastrophic for this country, that Trump got elected.  Ever thought about that?  He's just a reaction to the disastrous Obama presidency.


----------



## iceberg

colfax_m said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, the State of Texas has an interest in protecting its voters from such impact, especially one that violates the Electors Clause and very recent precedent surrounding its interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating. What impact did any of these states have on Texas's voters that it is seeking to protect them from?
> 
> You don't actually understand this argument, do you?
Click to expand...

this coming from someone who can't point out how these states followed their own constitutional laws.  

check mate son. tired of this ball of yarn in front of the kitty game with you. you failed miserably to state a single fact around the case, just spout shit and keep diverting.

as usual.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DrLove said:


> Appointed prosecutors who have been pursuing felony securities fraud charges against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for five years are researching new allegations that Paxton committed crimes in office.


AKA grasping at straws. 

I know the judge who appointed the retired sitting judge on that case (name is Mark Rusch).  The way he described the situation to me is that some asshole found some obscure securities technicality and is using it for political purposes.  There's a reason this case has taken 5 years.

Now, take this nonsense the fuck outta here.  It will never go to trial.  I will likely be dismissed.


----------



## DrLove

Paxton is securities fraudster about to get his bond revoked.
He is fishing for a pardon from the Dotard. Just posted over in the other thread:





						Texas Files Lawsuit at SCOTUS Against GA, PA, MI, and WI
					

Add Missouri to the list   @Eric_Schmitt · 1h Election integrity is central to our republic. And I will defend it at every turn.  As I have in other cases - I will help lead the effort in support of Texas’ #SCOTUS filing today.  Missouri is in the fight.



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## postman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> The impact of votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast for the various candidate in other States.  See also the Mass. v. EPA case on standing.
> 
> Thus, the State of Texas has an interest in protecting its voters from such impact, especially one that violates the Electors Clause and very recent precedent surrounding its interpretation.
> 
> Now, what the fuck is your bullshit response?



Actually see the latest decisions from the 9th and 4th circuits on "equal protection"  where they are arguing whether Bush V Gore is controlling, since the USSC said it was valid only for the unique facts of the case presented.

There was a suit which sought to correct the unequal protections of the several different voting systems, each with different error rates.  One suffered 2.5% under recording, while another had less than 1%.  This surely disenfranchised the county suffering 2.5% undervote.

But the courts ruled, overturned and finally settled on there being no equal protection right, because there was no constitutional remedy at law.


----------



## bripat9643

colfax_m said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> the lawsuit is about these states not following their outlined constitutional process. the electors is a remedy.
> 
> now - you keep avoiding this part of the convo and running away like a little schoolgirl -
> 
> show me where these states followed their own documented process to make the changes they did in fact make.
> 
> 
> 
> You're referring to their constitutional process for deciding electors. So yeah, this is essential to the court case.
Click to expand...

They didn't follow their "constitutional process," numskull.


----------



## Care4all

iceberg said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever read the articles?  Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and is was one of the things the Texas case said was an irregularity or illegal.
> 
> The SC won't take the case is my bet, or take it for some time down the road, where the people's choice of Biden is not affected.
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texans voted, Texans appointed their electors.  What another state does is none of their bee's wax, according to the constitution.... imo.  The people of those 4 states chose Biden, by landslides in most of them....there is no ambiguity.  The laws tweaked by the court rulings, truly matters naught...Biden, was chosen by their citizens to be our next president, in good faith....  they followed the election laws they were told were legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion isn't worth shit.  So if another state approves slavery, that's none of your business?  You realize that your fucking stupid, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no fraud that affected the results of the election.
> 
> The Texas etc lawsuit makes no mention of fraud?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well if this is as billed, THE MOST SECURE ELECTION EVA, then how could there have been any fraud at all?
> 
> man you just say shit without even seeing how they fit together.
Click to expand...

Because every election has some individual fraud...NOT conspired fraud.  My statement fits perfectly, with reality.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

The Electors Clause requires States to appoint their electors pursuant to state LEGISLATIVE action.  If a State fails to do so via its legislature, that is a violation of the EC.  Because the EC is, in essence, States voting for the POTUS and VP, one State is affected by another's failure to follow the proper process, just like an individual voter is affected when another votes illegally. 

Standing is obvious.  This argument that Texas has no standing is straight up BULLSHIT, unless somebody can show me legal authority otherwise.  

This is a dispute between States over the violation of Constitutional Law, which the SCOTUS has Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction.

Next?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

bripat9643 said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> the lawsuit is about these states not following their outlined constitutional process. the electors is a remedy.
> 
> now - you keep avoiding this part of the convo and running away like a little schoolgirl -
> 
> show me where these states followed their own documented process to make the changes they did in fact make.
> 
> 
> 
> You're referring to their constitutional process for deciding electors. So yeah, this is essential to the court case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't follow their "constitutional process," numskull.
Click to expand...

And that alone gets this matter before the SCOTUS in Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction, where all others may join, and all issues can be heard at once.


----------



## iceberg

Care4all said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever read the articles?  Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and is was one of the things the Texas case said was an irregularity or illegal.
> 
> The SC won't take the case is my bet, or take it for some time down the road, where the people's choice of Biden is not affected.
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texans voted, Texans appointed their electors.  What another state does is none of their bee's wax, according to the constitution.... imo.  The people of those 4 states chose Biden, by landslides in most of them....there is no ambiguity.  The laws tweaked by the court rulings, truly matters naught...Biden, was chosen by their citizens to be our next president, in good faith....  they followed the election laws they were told were legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion isn't worth shit.  So if another state approves slavery, that's none of your business?  You realize that your fucking stupid, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no fraud that affected the results of the election.
> 
> The Texas etc lawsuit makes no mention of fraud?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well if this is as billed, THE MOST SECURE ELECTION EVA, then how could there have been any fraud at all?
> 
> man you just say shit without even seeing how they fit together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because every election has some individual fraud...NOT conspired fraud.  My statement fits perfectly, with reality.
Click to expand...

oh i think it's pretty fair to say you don't have much to do with reality.


----------



## colfax_m

iceberg said:


> this coming from someone who can't point out how these states followed their own constitutional laws.
> 
> check mate son. tired of this ball of yarn in front of the kitty game with you. you failed miserably to state a single fact around the case, just spout shit and keep diverting.
> 
> as usual.


You're putting the cart in front of the horse. We can worry about the merits of the case after we demonstrate that the case is able to be brought at all.


----------



## colfax_m

bripat9643 said:


> They didn't follow their "constitutional process," numskull.


Says who?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Care4all said:


> There was no fraud that affected the results of the election.
> 
> The Texas etc lawsuit makes no mention of fraud?


Fraud is like what happened in Georgia, when witnesses were sent home due to a fake emergency
and then trays and trays of fresh new mail in ballots (the mail hidden under that table) were brought in to be filled in by remaining workers. 
Stephen Crowder has an excellent video on the matter.


----------



## Pete7469

iceberg said:


> oh.
> 
> it's you again.
> 
> i farted.
> 
> bye.




I almost snarfed my breakfast beer reading that funny shit.

She really is a stupid fucking bitch.


----------



## postman

> You have a state which gets 1.2 EC votes for every million citizens, arguing equal protection with a state which gets 1.8 EC votes for every million citizens.





bripat9643 said:


> You can't claim the Constitution is unconstitutional, moron.


But you can't look to the constitution that grants one state affirmative action,  to apply equal protection in a manner that protects the affirmative action.

Equal protection means equal.  In order to make each state equal, it has to remove the affirmative action to do so.


----------



## colfax_m

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Because the EC is, in essence, States voting for the POTUS and VP, one State is affected by another's failure to follow the proper process, just like an individual voter is affected when another votes illegally.


This is a bullshit analogy. You're arguing about how an elector is chosen, not whether the elector has a right to cast a vote at all. When someone votes illegally, they are casting a vote they should not be allowed to cast. No one is saying that the electors can't cast votes, you're just trying to tell them they can't vote for someone you don't like.


----------



## postman

bripat9643 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Texas etc lawsuit makes no mention of fraud?
> 
> 
> 
> There most certainly was.  That has been demonstrated over and over again.
Click to expand...


Maybe demonstrated on the court house steps, where their 1st amendment rights allow they to say anything. , But never demonstrated inside a court of law, where those making the claim are subject to penalty of perjury.


----------



## postman

bripat9643 said:


> They didn't follow their "constitutional process," numskull.



Their constitution process is controlled by the courts of their state.  Not by the courts of another state.


----------



## iceberg

colfax_m said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> this coming from someone who can't point out how these states followed their own constitutional laws.
> 
> check mate son. tired of this ball of yarn in front of the kitty game with you. you failed miserably to state a single fact around the case, just spout shit and keep diverting.
> 
> as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> You're putting the cart in front of the horse. We can worry about the merits of the case after we demonstrate that the case is able to be brought at all.
Click to expand...

And once again you simply can't say that these, states followed their own laws. 

Pathetic.


----------



## postman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> The Electors Clause requires States to appoint their electors pursuant to state LEGISLATIVE action.  If a State fails to do so via its legislature, that is a violation of the EC.  Because the EC is, in essence, States voting for the POTUS and VP, one State is affected by another's failure to follow the proper process, just like an individual voter is affected when another votes illegally.



Wrong again.  In the very first presidential election, states chose their own unique methods of choosing electors, including not choosing them at all.

If there was an equal protection violation, that certainly would have been one.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> One state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, you guys have been claiming every new court case is going to be "the one" for a month now. A month later Trump and his allies have lost 50 cases. This will just be another loss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can smell the qui
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
> way to victory.  The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.
> 
> And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
> slitting their own wrists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it.  I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point.  I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case.  I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes loyalty to Trump or the Republican party by any justice.....rather than loyalty to the law and the Constitution.
> 
> As the court rejecting _Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v Pennsylvania, et al. _just this morning elegantly demonstrated, you're likely going to be very disappointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "problem" with the reasoning that exists only in the mind of a leftist "I would behave this way, so I assume everyone would" dipshit bothers me not at all.
> 
> Hold your breath waiting for me to defend something that you only imagine I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You get that this is the longest of long shots, yes? That the odds of this effecting the outcome of the election is roughly the number that comes just after zero?
Click to expand...


You get that "Only do it if you get something out of it" is a leftist philosophy?  Conservatives are more about doing things because it's the right thing to do.

The saying is, "All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."  You wouldn't know about that, being neither good nor a man.


----------



## BlindBoo

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republican controlled legislature passed the bill.
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw in MI it was the people who voted for Mail in ballots in 2018. By referendum. A power delegated to them, by guess who......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, so what? The bottom line is states can't make changes to their voting rules leading up to
> an election without involving their legislatures.
Click to expand...




Eric Arthur Blair said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republican controlled legislature passed the bill.
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw in MI it was the people who voted for Mail in ballots in 2018. By referendum. A power delegated to them, by guess who......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, so what? The bottom line is states can't make changes to their voting rules leading up to
> an election without involving their legislatures.
Click to expand...


The Court would need to switch to an extremely narrow interpretation, in the middle of an election. It's s Hail Mary, but sometimes they score.  I mean the SC is human and they make bad decisions.  Once they ruled that some people were owned property, like farm animals.  So anything is possible.






						Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
					

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars



					constitutioncenter.org
				




"The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures. 

The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials. "


----------



## Cecilie1200

iceberg said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
> way to victory.  The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.
> 
> And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
> slitting their own wrists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it.  I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point.  I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case.  I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes loyalty to Trump or the Republican party by any justice.....rather than loyalty to the law and the Constitution.
> 
> As the court rejecting _Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v Pennsylvania, et al. _just this morning elegantly demonstrated, you're likely going to be very disappointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "problem" with the reasoning that exists only in the mind of a leftist "I would behave this way, so I assume everyone would" dipshit bothers me not at all.
> 
> Hold your breath waiting for me to defend something that you only imagine I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is what is so funny. the left is so hellbent on making up stupid interpretation of what you said and then attacking their known misintrepretations as if you said it.
Click to expand...


They kinda have to create straw men to fight against.  If they tried to fight against the ACTUAL arguments, they'd look as stupid as they actually are.


----------



## Cecilie1200

skye said:


> Louisiana has joined Texas and  ................now Alabama has joined too!!!!!!
> 
> Wohoooooooooo Alabama!



Missouri and Arkansas have also climbed on board now.


----------



## postman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Because the EC is, in essence, States voting for the POTUS and VP, one State is affected by another's failure to follow the proper process, just like an individual voter is affected when another votes illegally.



And what is the remedy when one state has a voting process with a 2% error rate, while another states error rate is only 1%.

Do you disenfranchise the state that can't keep their error rate below a certain percentage?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
> way to victory.  The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.
> 
> And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
> slitting their own wrists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it.  I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point.  I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case.  I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes loyalty to Trump or the Republican party by any justice.....rather than loyalty to the law and the Constitution.
> 
> As the court rejecting _Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v Pennsylvania, et al. _just this morning elegantly demonstrated, you're likely going to be very disappointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the problem is you keep trying to tell people how they feel and you keep getting it wrong.
> 
> cute. annoying as fuck, but cute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your feelings I'll leave to you. The arguments being presented is what I'll critique.
Click to expand...


Based on YOUR feelings about them.  Pass.


----------



## colfax_m

iceberg said:


> And once again you simply can't say that these, states followed their own laws.
> 
> Pathetic.


I don't have to. Not unless there's a reason for SCOTUS to take up this case with someone who has nothing to do with whether any other state acted in accordance with it's own laws.

I'll tell you what, since I'm feeling generous, why don't you pick ONE example in the lawsuit to discuss. Pick your favorite. If you don't want to, I can, but I thought I'd offer you the opportunity first.


----------



## bripat9643

postman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't follow their "constitutional process," numskull.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their constitution process is controlled by the courts of their state.  Not by the courts of another state.
Click to expand...

Not true, moron.


----------



## postman

BlindBoo said:


> The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials. "



This is like in Florida where their constitution delegates to the judicial branch, the jurisdiction over election disputes.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is saying the States in question violated the rules. This led to the increased chance of fraud.
> 
> There is no hard evidence YET, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence you ignore.  You act like the people who did it wouldn't try to hide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe Texas has to prove any fraud.  I don't think their case even mentions fraud.  All they have to prove is that 1) the legislatures of those states passed clear and specific election laws, 2) various state government entities who are NOT the legislature decided to change those rules without consulting the state legislature, 3) the US Constitution disallows for such behavior, and 4) the people of the state of Texas (and now Louisiana and Alabama) are substantially harmed by the behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 3rd point of contention made by Texas are the 'irregularities' that call into question the 'integrity' of the ballots.
Click to expand...


Irregularities are not fraud, shitforbrains.  The illegal changes to the election laws WERE the irregularities.

Keep trying.


----------



## iceberg

colfax_m said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you simply can't say that these, states followed their own laws.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to. Not unless there's a reason for SCOTUS to take up this case with someone who has nothing to do with whether any other state acted in accordance with it's own laws.
> 
> I'll tell you what, since I'm feeling generous, why don't you pick ONE example in the lawsuit to discuss. Pick your favorite. If you don't want to, I can, but I thought I'd offer you the opportunity first.
Click to expand...

Great. 

Did the states bypass their own constitution and laws to change voting laws?


----------



## Coyote

iceberg said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> 
> *did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? i*f no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> 
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
Click to expand...


IMO - yes.  Challenges have been upheld.  PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.


----------



## Cecilie1200

postman said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the EC is, in essence, States voting for the POTUS and VP, one State is affected by another's failure to follow the proper process, just like an individual voter is affected when another votes illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is the remedy when one state has a voting process with a 2% error rate, while another states error rate is only 1%.
> 
> Do you disenfranchise the state that can't keep their error rate below a certain percentage?
Click to expand...


No one has suggested disenfranchising the states.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> 
> *did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? i*f no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> 
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO - yes.  Challenges have been upheld.  PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.
Click to expand...

Does running a primary constitute acceptance of circumventing their laws?

Ie, did the legislative branch validate the new laws or did another branch create them?


----------



## bripat9643

Coyote said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> 
> *did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? i*f no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> 
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO - yes.  Challenges have been upheld.  PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.
Click to expand...

So if I rob liqour store 'A' and get away with it, that means they can't arrest me for robbing liqour store 'B?'


----------



## Coyote

iceberg said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> 
> *did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? i*f no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> 
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO - yes.  Challenges have been upheld.  PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does running a primary constitute acceptance of circumventing their laws?
> 
> Ie, did the legislative branch validate the new laws or did another branch create them?
Click to expand...


Running a primary as well as running a general election does.


----------



## Coyote

bripat9643 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> 
> *did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? i*f no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> 
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO - yes.  Challenges have been upheld.  PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if I rob liqour store 'A' and get away with it, that means they can't arrest me for robbing liqour store 'B?'
Click to expand...


Apples and Oranges.

If Liquor store B gets robbed, and the owner waits 9 months to report it...good luck.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> 
> *did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? i*f no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> 
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO - yes.  Challenges have been upheld.  PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does running a primary constitute acceptance of circumventing their laws?
> 
> Ie, did the legislative branch validate the new laws or did another branch create them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Running a primary as well as running a general election does.
Click to expand...

Did the legislative branch create these changes and vote on them? 

Is there a link that says they are valid if uncontested and used?


----------



## Dragonlady

iceberg said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't right wing loons (generally) for state's rights? Wonder how Texarse would feel if NY decided it wanted to repeal Texarse's CCW laws?
> 
> 
> 
> What laws----these 4 states didn't follow their own election law and used  a faulty computer fraudulent system to tabulate votes incorrectly stealing an election maybe for a very unpopular senile crook named joe.
> 
> Keep the Chinese puppet and pedophile family out of the white house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Chinese puppet and pedophile family are already IN the White House.  This election was about getting the Trump Crime Family OUT of the White House.
> 
> People who aren't criminals, don't need pardons.  Trump is preparing to pardon everyone in his family and everyone in his administration.  That tells you just how criminal and corrupt the Trump Administration has been.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought it was RUSSIA.
> 
> China your new RUSSIA?
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice attempt at deflection, but really, it's any authoritarian regime in the world.  Trump has cozied up to all of them:  Turkey, North Korea, China, Russia, Poland.  Trump has snubbed allies and democratic states, and given all sorts of aid and comfort to the dictators.
> 
> You rail against the rapid expansion of Chinese influence throughout the world, but look how Trump has increased trade and power for China.  When Trump pulled out of the Trans Pacific Partnership, relinguishing the role of Lead Nation in the TPP, China joined the TPP and took the role of the Lead Nation which Trump vacated, increasing worldwide trade with China, and opening up new markets for them.  Big win for China.
> 
> When Trump issued tariffs against Chinese goods, China retailated by cancelling billions of dollars of agricultural orders, mainly soybeans purchased from mid-Western farmers.  The American taxpayers are STILL paying subsidies to these farmers for their loss of business.  Big loss for American taxpayers.  But China still needed to buy soybeans, so they contracted with farmers in Argentina and Brazil.  China still bought the soy beans, but now they have expanded their trade to South America, which makes them a major trading partner with cash strapped South American countries.  Big win for China.
> 
> In order to better serve their Chinese markets, China is using their huge trade surplus with the rest of the world, to fund the construction of deep sea ports along the Pacific coast of South America, and the Indian Ocean ports along the African coastline, to facilitate the big transport ships handling all of this big trade with China.  The Chinese call it the "Silk Road Trade Route".  HUGE FUCKING WIN FOR CHINA.
> 
> All of these wins for China came directly out of the Trump Presidency.  You now have no trade deal with China, because Trump tore them all up.  China is basically taking over world trade, because Donald Trump tore up all of the trade deals that made the USA the richest nation in the world.  You have NAFTA 2.0, a deal with South Korea, and a deal with Japan, none of which are much different than the past.
> 
> After 2008, the world began disentangling itself from the USA, and we all started building our own trade alliances.  The NATO Partners are actively discussing a new security alliances which eliminates the USA, because your government has become too unstable.
> 
> So yes, by all means continue to believe that the military alliances which kept the world at peace for 70 years, were "unfair" to the USA, and the trade deals which made the USA the richest nation on earth were "taking advantage" of Americans.
> 
> Donald Trump just gave away the farm to China, quite literally, and you're worried about what Biden will allow China to do?  That's closing the gate after the rustlers have left with your cattle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oh.
> 
> it's you again.
> 
> i farted.
> 
> bye.
Click to expand...


A response which covers the entire depth and breadth of your intellect.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> 
> *did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? i*f no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> 
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO - yes.  Challenges have been upheld.  PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if I rob liqour store 'A' and get away with it, that means they can't arrest me for robbing liqour store 'B?'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and Oranges.
> 
> If Liquor store B gets robbed, and the owner waits 9 months to report it...good luck.
Click to expand...

In Texas the statute of limitations gives you 5 years to file. So in 9 months he could still report it.


----------



## bripat9643

Coyote said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> 
> *did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? i*f no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> 
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO - yes.  Challenges have been upheld.  PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if I rob liqour store 'A' and get away with it, that means they can't arrest me for robbing liqour store 'B?'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and Oranges.
> 
> If Liquor store B gets robbed, and the owner waits 9 months to report it...good luck.
Click to expand...

It's still illegal, moron.  That just makes it more difficult to prosecute..  In the case of the Pennsylvania primary, the plaintiffs would have all been Democrats,


----------



## postman

colfax_m said:


> I don't have to. Not unless there's a reason for SCOTUS to take up this case with someone who has nothing to do with whether any other state acted in accordance with it's own laws.



Can another state force a state to follow it's own laws?

The DA has prosecutorial discretion in charging crimes.  So how can another state force them to prosecute?


----------



## colfax_m

Cecilie1200 said:


> No one has suggested disenfranchising the states.


No, they're just suggesting disenfranchise some of the states, specifically some of the states that voted for Biden.









						Top Pennsylvania Republicans pressure congressional delegation to challenge Biden’s victory
					

The effort stands in contrast to the reaction of Arizona’s House Speaker, who rebuked the Trump-led pressure campaign on Friday.




					www.politico.com


----------



## BlindBoo

Cecilie1200 said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the EC is, in essence, States voting for the POTUS and VP, one State is affected by another's failure to follow the proper process, just like an individual voter is affected when another votes illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is the remedy when one state has a voting process with a 2% error rate, while another states error rate is only 1%.
> 
> Do you disenfranchise the state that can't keep their error rate below a certain percentage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has suggested disenfranchising the states.
Click to expand...


LOL Just the will of the voters.


----------



## postman

bripat9643 said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their constitution process is controlled by the courts of their state.  Not by the courts of another state.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, moron.
Click to expand...


One state can't interpret the constitution of another state.


----------



## bripat9643

postman said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to. Not unless there's a reason for SCOTUS to take up this case with someone who has nothing to do with whether any other state acted in accordance with it's own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can another state force a state to follow it's own laws?
> 
> The DA has prosecutorial discretion in charging crimes.  So how can another state force them to prosecute?
Click to expand...

Sure they can.  How about pollution laws where water pollution goes into states that are downstream.


----------



## bripat9643

postman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their constitution process is controlled by the courts of their state.  Not by the courts of another state.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One state can't interpret the constitution of another state.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court can.


----------



## bripat9643

colfax_m said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has suggested disenfranchising the states.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're just suggesting disenfranchise some of the states, specifically some of the states that voted for Biden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top Pennsylvania Republicans pressure congressional delegation to challenge Biden’s victory
> 
> 
> The effort stands in contrast to the reaction of Arizona’s House Speaker, who rebuked the Trump-led pressure campaign on Friday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com
Click to expand...

Those states disenfranchised us with massive voter fraud which their laws facilitated.


----------



## postman

bripat9643 said:


> So if I rob liqour store 'A' and get away with it, that means they can't arrest me for robbing liqour store 'B?'



It means if you smoke pot in California and get away with it, that Georgia can't arrest you for smoking pot in California.


----------



## Coyote

iceberg said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> 
> *did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? i*f no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> 
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO - yes.  Challenges have been upheld.  PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does running a primary constitute acceptance of circumventing their laws?
> 
> Ie, did the legislative branch validate the new laws or did another branch create them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Running a primary as well as running a general election does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did the legislative branch create these changes and vote on them?
> 
> Is there a link that says they are valid if uncontested and used?
Click to expand...



Let's look at one state, of the four in contention - Georgia.  Each has it's own set of laws so we can't really talk about them all together nor do I (and I suspect most here) have much knowledge of individual state election laws and constitutions.  But state AG's do.

Here's what this article quotes Georgia's AG as saying:









						Texas suing 4 states over election
					

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he's suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin directly in the U.S. Supreme Court, accusing the battleground states of exploiting the coronavirus pandemic to enact last-minute changes illegally to mail-in voting rules.




					www.arkansasonline.com
				




_*Paxton "is constitutionally, legally and factually wrong about Georgia," Katie Byrd, spokeswoman for the state's attorney general, Chris Carr, said in a statement.*
_
_According to Paxton, the U.S. Constitution only grants state legislatures the authority to make changes to election laws, and election officials, like secretaries of states, violated the law in doing so. The Texas suit also claims those states violated the equal protection clause by allowing Democratic-leaning counties to restrict Republican poll-watchers or accept ballots with minor errors._​​_*Courts nationwide have rejected these arguments, holding that state officials had a right to change rules for mail-in ballots to prevent spread of the virus in crowded polling places and protect the right to vote.* Democratic state officials involved in other lawsuits with the president's campaign have accused Trump of trying to undermine faith in U.S. elections to hobble the president-elect as he takes office._​
The equal protection claim makes no sense because there was no "restriction" of partisan watchers, there are limits as to how many, applied to both parties.  In addition - NO counties were prevented from following the same guidelines as the "Democrat leaning" counties - it was up to them as to whether or not they wanted to do it and the rules applied equally.


----------



## Coyote

iceberg said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> 
> *did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? i*f no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> 
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO - yes.  Challenges have been upheld.  PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if I rob liqour store 'A' and get away with it, that means they can't arrest me for robbing liqour store 'B?'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and Oranges.
> 
> If Liquor store B gets robbed, and the owner waits 9 months to report it...good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Texas the statute of limitations gives you 5 years to file. So in 9 months he could still report it.
Click to expand...


True, but you are still arguing apples and oranges here.


----------



## bripat9643

postman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I rob liqour store 'A' and get away with it, that means they can't arrest me for robbing liqour store 'B?'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means if you smoke pot in California and get away with it, that Georgia can't arrest you for smoking pot in California.
Click to expand...

If you get a traffic ticket in CA, and then buy insurance in Wisconsin, that ticket will show on your record.


----------



## postman

bripat9643 said:


> It's still illegal, moron.  That just makes it more difficult to prosecute..  In the case of the Pennsylvania primary, the plaintiffs would have all been Democrats,


Pennsylvania held republican primaries for the house of representatives, as well as the state legislature and others.

Just because Trump wasn't in the primary, doesn't mean there wasn't a primary.


----------



## bripat9643

Coyote said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> 
> *did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? i*f no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> 
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO - yes.  Challenges have been upheld.  PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does running a primary constitute acceptance of circumventing their laws?
> 
> Ie, did the legislative branch validate the new laws or did another branch create them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Running a primary as well as running a general election does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did the legislative branch create these changes and vote on them?
> 
> Is there a link that says they are valid if uncontested and used?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at one state, of the four in contention - Georgia.  Each has it's own set of laws so we can't really talk about them all together nor do I (and I suspect most here) have much knowledge of individual state election laws and constitutions.  But state AG's do.
> 
> Here's what this article quotes Georgia's AG as saying:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas suing 4 states over election
> 
> 
> Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he's suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin directly in the U.S. Supreme Court, accusing the battleground states of exploiting the coronavirus pandemic to enact last-minute changes illegally to mail-in voting rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.arkansasonline.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Paxton "is constitutionally, legally and factually wrong about Georgia," Katie Byrd, spokeswoman for the state's attorney general, Chris Carr, said in a statement.*_
> 
> _According to Paxton, the U.S. Constitution only grants state legislatures the authority to make changes to election laws, and election officials, like secretaries of states, violated the law in doing so. The Texas suit also claims those states violated the equal protection clause by allowing Democratic-leaning counties to restrict Republican poll-watchers or accept ballots with minor errors._​​_*Courts nationwide have rejected these arguments, holding that state officials had a right to change rules for mail-in ballots to prevent spread of the virus in crowded polling places and protect the right to vote.* Democratic state officials involved in other lawsuits with the president's campaign have accused Trump of trying to undermine faith in U.S. elections to hobble the president-elect as he takes office._​
> The equal protection claim makes no sense because there was no "restriction" of partisan watchers, there are limits as to how many, applied to both parties.  In addition - NO counties were prevented from following the same guidelines as the "Democrat leaning" counties - it was up to them as to whether or not they wanted to do it and the rules applied equally.
Click to expand...

That has to be the dumbest argument I have seen this month.


----------



## colfax_m

bripat9643 said:


> Those states disenfranchised us with massive voter fraud which their laws facilitated.


How were you disenfranchised by the "fraud" that occurred in another state?

You got to vote, correct? Your vote was counted, wasn't it?


----------



## postman

bripat9643 said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can another state force a state to follow it's own laws?
> 
> The DA has prosecutorial discretion in charging crimes.  So how can another state force them to prosecute?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  How about pollution laws where water pollution goes into states that are downstream.
Click to expand...


That's a TORT.   Not a crime.


----------



## bripat9643

colfax_m said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those states disenfranchised us with massive voter fraud which their laws facilitated.
> 
> 
> 
> How were you disenfranchised by the "fraud" that occurred in another state?
> 
> You got to vote, correct? Your vote was counted, wasn't it?
Click to expand...

Every fraudulent vote in State 'A' disnefranchises someone in the other states.  That's so simple that even you can understand it.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> 
> *did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? i*f no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> 
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO - yes.  Challenges have been upheld.  PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if I rob liqour store 'A' and get away with it, that means they can't arrest me for robbing liqour store 'B?'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and Oranges.
> 
> If Liquor store B gets robbed, and the owner waits 9 months to report it...good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Texas the statute of limitations gives you 5 years to file. So in 9 months he could still report it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but you are still arguing apples and oranges here.
Click to expand...

well if "good luck" meant good luck catching him, yea. a bit late. i'm just talking legal process, not desired outcome.


----------



## postman

bripat9643 said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their constitution process is controlled by the courts of their state.  Not by the courts of another state.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One state can't interpret the constitution of another state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court can.
Click to expand...


The supreme court gives great deference to the courts of the states. After all, who knows more about the legislative intent, than those that wrote it.


----------



## bripat9643

postman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can another state force a state to follow it's own laws?
> 
> The DA has prosecutorial discretion in charging crimes.  So how can another state force them to prosecute?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  How about pollution laws where water pollution goes into states that are downstream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a TORT.   Not a crime.
Click to expand...

This is also a tort, moron.  The states are "suing."   That means a tort.


----------



## bripat9643

postman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their constitution process is controlled by the courts of their state.  Not by the courts of another state.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One state can't interpret the constitution of another state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supreme court gives great deference to the courts of the states. After all, who knows more about the legislative intent, than those that wrote it.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court over rules state laws all the time, moron.


----------



## postman

bripat9643 said:


> Those states disenfranchised us with massive voter fraud which their laws facilitated.



You said the same thing about gay marriage somehow debasing heterosexual marriage.

You were wrong about that too.


----------



## Pete7469

Care4all said:


> Because every election has some individual fraud...NOT conspired fraud.  My statement fits perfectly, with reality.






OK... Why would you even be comfortable with "some individual fraud"? You do realize that if it happens thousands of times in certain areas it can change the results and undermine "the will of the people" that you claim to care about.

I ignore 95% of the bed wetters on this forum, and of the 5% I even pay attention to, you represent one of the few who seem to at least have some cognitive reasoning capacity. I understand that you hate Trump, even though if he ran as a democrok and picked Oprah as his VP you would have gone down to the border and demanded a job building the wall, you loathe the man because he isn't running as a democrok, and he beat the sociopath hag in 2016.

Be honest with me here hon, because to be honest with you, I'm not worried about the biden admin. He works for the billionaires who maintain the bullshit fiat currency and he isn't going to do a damn thing different than the Bush regime did other than allowing a bit more liberal lunacy to become policy than the Bushes did.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> 
> *did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? i*f no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> 
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO - yes.  Challenges have been upheld.  PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does running a primary constitute acceptance of circumventing their laws?
> 
> Ie, did the legislative branch validate the new laws or did another branch create them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Running a primary as well as running a general election does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did the legislative branch create these changes and vote on them?
> 
> Is there a link that says they are valid if uncontested and used?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at one state, of the four in contention - Georgia.  Each has it's own set of laws so we can't really talk about them all together nor do I (and I suspect most here) have much knowledge of individual state election laws and constitutions.  But state AG's do.
> 
> Here's what this article quotes Georgia's AG as saying:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas suing 4 states over election
> 
> 
> Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he's suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin directly in the U.S. Supreme Court, accusing the battleground states of exploiting the coronavirus pandemic to enact last-minute changes illegally to mail-in voting rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.arkansasonline.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Paxton "is constitutionally, legally and factually wrong about Georgia," Katie Byrd, spokeswoman for the state's attorney general, Chris Carr, said in a statement.*_
> 
> _According to Paxton, the U.S. Constitution only grants state legislatures the authority to make changes to election laws, and election officials, like secretaries of states, violated the law in doing so. The Texas suit also claims those states violated the equal protection clause by allowing Democratic-leaning counties to restrict Republican poll-watchers or accept ballots with minor errors._​​_*Courts nationwide have rejected these arguments, holding that state officials had a right to change rules for mail-in ballots to prevent spread of the virus in crowded polling places and protect the right to vote.* Democratic state officials involved in other lawsuits with the president's campaign have accused Trump of trying to undermine faith in U.S. elections to hobble the president-elect as he takes office._​
> The equal protection claim makes no sense because there was no "restriction" of partisan watchers, there are limits as to how many, applied to both parties.  In addition - NO counties were prevented from following the same guidelines as the "Democrat leaning" counties - it was up to them as to whether or not they wanted to do it and the rules applied equally.
Click to expand...

and i would think on the surface these are valid counter arguments to the claim.

as for whether or not rules were applied equally, unfortunately that just depends on which website you read.

my main point is, i prefer going through the courts to settle disputes and sorting out the details. if trump loses, he loses. however i am not a lawyer and i don't think many in here are. we tend to mix and match as desired our feelings of a desired outcome with the legal process of getting there.

right or wrong, this is a valid way to address your concerns of our system. given other methods i've seen taking place, i far prefer the court method and am fine with allowing time w/o demonizing those pursuing this option we all have available to us.


----------



## bripat9643

postman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those states disenfranchised us with massive voter fraud which their laws facilitated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said the same thing about gay marriage somehow debasing heterosexual marriage.
> 
> You were wrong about that too.
Click to expand...

I doubt I ever used the word "debased."  I wasn't wrong about gay marriage.  It's a joke.


----------



## postman

bripat9643 said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means if you smoke pot in California and get away with it, that Georgia can't arrest you for smoking pot in California.
> 
> 
> 
> If you get a traffic ticket in CA, and then buy insurance in Wisconsin, that ticket will show on your record.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with breaking the law?


----------



## Coyote

iceberg said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> 
> *did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? i*f no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> 
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO - yes.  Challenges have been upheld.  PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if I rob liqour store 'A' and get away with it, that means they can't arrest me for robbing liqour store 'B?'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and Oranges.
> 
> If Liquor store B gets robbed, and the owner waits 9 months to report it...good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Texas the statute of limitations gives you 5 years to file. So in 9 months he could still report it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but you are still arguing apples and oranges here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well if "good luck" meant good luck catching him, yea. a bit late. i'm just talking legal process, not desired outcome.
Click to expand...


Ok, but I don't think the two are really comparable - for one, look at what the PA court (I think it was PA) said in regards to their attempting to claim illegal change of election rules.  The judge made a point of telling them they ran primaries under the rules when it suited them and allowed the general election to proceed without dispute until AFTER.  That would certainly imply they were fine with it when it suited them.  And, as the judge pointed out, it would disenfranchise thousands of voters who voted in good faith by the rules they were provided.  These aren't illegal voters or fraudulent votes.  This is a case of people trying to use a relatively obscure legal challenge to knowingly and deliberately disenfranchise voters and that is just plain wrong, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## colfax_m

iceberg said:


> Great.
> 
> Did the states bypass their own constitution and laws to change voting laws?


I don't think so. Do you have any examples from the lawsuit that you think are relevant?


----------



## Billiejeens

iceberg said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> 
> *did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? i*f no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> 
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO - yes.  Challenges have been upheld.  PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does running a primary constitute acceptance of circumventing their laws?
> 
> Ie, did the legislative branch validate the new laws or did another branch create them?
Click to expand...



Think about it.

If they didn't understand - here is video showing fraud, here is the mathematical impossibility of what you say happened, happening, a conceptual idea of -
Laws were passed
Laws were not followed 
Is not going to be understood.


----------



## postman

bripat9643 said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can another state force a state to follow it's own laws?
> 
> The DA has prosecutorial discretion in charging crimes.  So how can another state force them to prosecute?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  How about pollution laws where water pollution goes into states that are downstream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a TORT.   Not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is also a tort, moron.  The states are "suing."   That means a tort.
Click to expand...


You said one state could force another state to follow it's own laws.   As an example you bring up a tort and not a crime.

What's up with that?


----------



## Billiejeens

iceberg said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> 
> *did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? i*f no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> 
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO - yes.  Challenges have been upheld.  PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does running a primary constitute acceptance of circumventing their laws?
> 
> Ie, did the legislative branch validate the new laws or did another branch create them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Running a primary as well as running a general election does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did the legislative branch create these changes and vote on them?
> 
> Is there a link that says they are valid if uncontested and used?
Click to expand...



No.
No.
Some were contested, and used anyway.


----------



## Billiejeens

postman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their constitution process is controlled by the courts of their state.  Not by the courts of another state.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One state can't interpret the constitution of another state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supreme court gives great deference to the courts of the states. After all, who knows more about the legislative intent, than those that wrote it.
Click to expand...


Courts don't write legislation.


----------



## colfax_m

Billiejeens said:


> Think about it.
> 
> If they didn't understand - here is video showing fraud, here is the mathematical impossibility of what you say happened, happening, a conceptual idea of -
> Laws were passed
> Laws were not followed
> Is not going to be understood.


You'd think that you'd have won some court cases if these allegations were backed up with _so much evidence. _


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

BlindBoo said:


> LOL Just the will of the voters.


The will of the voters is not immune to the law of the land or superior to it.
What about the will of the voters who have been disenfranchised by a handful of key states
that have changed their voting laws to allow for a huge increase in mail in ballots that are illegally
processed (as in Georgia in their "pipe bursting" incident)?


----------



## postman

bripat9643 said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court gives great deference to the courts of the states. After all, who knows more about the legislative intent, than those that wrote it.
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court over rules state laws all the time, moron.
Click to expand...


The supreme court invalidates state laws that are unconstitutional or extra-legal.  

But the court doesn't mandate a states laws be followed.  Ex: the court can't point to the states prisoners on death row, and insist they be executed.


----------



## postman

colfax_m said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> Did the states bypass their own constitution and laws to change voting laws?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. Do you have any examples from the lawsuit that you think are relevant?
Click to expand...


the argument seems to be that the state constitution has rules for "absentee ballots", and they sought to create a new class of balloting not defined in the constitution

So the state legislature created a new type of ballot, called a "mail-in" ballot, under rules the state legislature enacted.


----------



## postman

Billiejeens said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court gives great deference to the courts of the states. After all, who knows more about the legislative intent, than those that wrote it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Courts don't write legislation.
Click to expand...


Case law defines legislation.
In essence they write the regulations.


----------



## BlindBoo

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Just the will of the voters.
> 
> 
> 
> The will of the voters is not immune to the law of the land or superior to it.
> What about the will of the voters who have been disenfranchised by a handful of key states
> that have changed their voting laws to allow for a huge increase in mail in ballots that are illegally
> processed (as in Georgia in their "pipe bursting" incident)?
Click to expand...


The changes that hugely increased mail in ballots (Universal absentees)  were passed by the legislatures.  The changes made addressed grey areas of the law.  Some of these changes were challenged both sides won some and lost some.  None of them rose to the level of massive fraud that could change the outcome of the vote.









						Pandemic, partisan attacks exposed gaps in Pa.’s new mail-in voting law
					

While many lawmakers agree changes are needed, finding common ground in the current hyper-partisan climate might be impossible.




					www.inquirer.com


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> 
> *did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? i*f no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> 
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO - yes.  Challenges have been upheld.  PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if I rob liqour store 'A' and get away with it, that means they can't arrest me for robbing liqour store 'B?'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and Oranges.
> 
> If Liquor store B gets robbed, and the owner waits 9 months to report it...good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Texas the statute of limitations gives you 5 years to file. So in 9 months he could still report it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but you are still arguing apples and oranges here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well if "good luck" meant good luck catching him, yea. a bit late. i'm just talking legal process, not desired outcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, but I don't think the two are really comparable - for one, look at what the PA court (I think it was PA) said in regards to their attempting to claim illegal change of election rules.  The judge made a point of telling them they ran primaries under the rules when it suited them and allowed the general election to proceed without dispute until AFTER.  That would certainly imply they were fine with it when it suited them.  And, as the judge pointed out, it would disenfranchise thousands of voters who voted in good faith by the rules they were provided.  These aren't illegal voters or fraudulent votes.  This is a case of people trying to use a relatively obscure legal challenge to knowingly and deliberately disenfranchise voters and that is just plain wrong, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

that would be one point of view that would be valid. however, another valid point of view is they didn't see the impact of the changes until now.

if you change the rules to something and i simply don't respond, you're after an implied acceptance at this point. as for doing things when it suits your purpose, this is what about *in my mind* most of the election changes were about - suiting the purpose of the left to do so, so they did.

so while you can have a valid argument, i simply ask we hold both sides accountable to said argument.


----------



## postman

Courts fill in the details to the laws that legislatures write. Becoming part of the law.


----------



## iceberg

Billiejeens said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> 
> *did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? i*f no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> 
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO - yes.  Challenges have been upheld.  PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does running a primary constitute acceptance of circumventing their laws?
> 
> Ie, did the legislative branch validate the new laws or did another branch create them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Running a primary as well as running a general election does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did the legislative branch create these changes and vote on them?
> 
> Is there a link that says they are valid if uncontested and used?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> No.
> Some were contested, and used anyway.
Click to expand...

and this is what i am trying to find out in the end.

1 - what is the documented process for the state to change their elections laws?
2 - was the processes followed in order to do so?

if it was then showing me that shouldn't be too difficult. the bulk of the arguments i hear are that oh it doesn't impact texas, why do they care? didn't change election, hush and so forth.

so in effect, they are fine with breaking the law "if it suits their purpose" and will attack you if you demand accountability. that is what i am seeing.

no one is really saying that i have seen PA and the other 3 states did it correctly, they are saying it's none of the other states suing them's business.

whether it is or not isn't my point of discussion. DID THESE STATES FOLLOW THEIR OWN LAWS? if not, follow up and prosecute.

removing yourself from prosecution because you really really want something and think it's OK in this instance in my mind is how we got here.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

CowboyTed said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course - Texas has every right to change election laws in all 57 states because, you know ... TEXAS!
> Good lord, when will Republicans stop embarrassing themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will make them pay for it?
> 
> Their voters?? Nope...
> 
> They are embarrassing themselves for their voters....
> 
> and when this is said and done, I guarantee you that these folks will get pissed if you ever remind them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you would prefer the people nationwide to pay for those States' "right" to defraud the the rest of the rest the United States. Voting fraud affects *all* Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allegations of fraud with no evidence shouldn't affect any Americans....
> 
> We are weeks now of the allegations of fraud... Where is the evidence... Evidence that will stand up in court...
> 
> Where is it?
> 
> No messages of 'it is coming' or 'it is everywhere'... Accusing people of a crime and having no evidence is a crime in itself...*
Click to expand...

*"Allegations of fraud with no evidence shouldn't affect any Americans...."*

Oh please we have just had several years of Dems accusing every one who doesn't share their agenda with every crime misdemeanor and/or perversion they can think of without the first shred of evidence. Best expect the shoe to be on the other foot if Biden should actually manage to sleeze his way into office and for impeachment proceedings to commence immediately. Besides who are you to claim the evidence is invalid before it is even all presented? If those States have accepted illegal votes or deliberately encouraged illegal voting in a Federal election they have committed a crime against the Nation.


----------



## DrLove

9thIDdoc said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course - Texas has every right to change election laws in all 57 states because, you know ... TEXAS!
> Good lord, when will Republicans stop embarrassing themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will make them pay for it?
> 
> Their voters?? Nope...
> 
> They are embarrassing themselves for their voters....
> 
> and when this is said and done, I guarantee you that these folks will get pissed if you ever remind them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you would prefer the people nationwide to pay for those States' "right" to defraud the the rest of the rest the United States. Voting fraud affects *all* Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allegations of fraud with no evidence shouldn't affect any Americans....
> 
> We are weeks now of the allegations of fraud... Where is the evidence... Evidence that will stand up in court...
> 
> Where is it?
> 
> No messages of 'it is coming' or 'it is everywhere'... Accusing people of a crime and having no evidence is a crime in itself...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Allegations of fraud with no evidence shouldn't affect any Americans...."*
> 
> Oh please we have just had several years of Dems accusing every one who doesn't share their agenda with every crime misdemeanor and/or perversion they can think of without the first shred of evidence. Best expect the shoe to be on the other foot if Biden should actually manage to sleeze his way into office and for impeachment proceedings to commence immediately. Besides who are you to claim the evidence is invalid before it is even all presented? If those States have accepted illegal votes or deliberately encouraged illegal voting in a Federal election they have committed a crime against the Nation.
Click to expand...


The "evidence" has been presented. 52 judges (including Rump judges) laughed it out of court.


----------



## Toro

The TX lawsuit just regurgitates old claims that have already been thrown out of court, including claims by the drunk lady in MI.







rofl


----------



## Toro




----------



## Lesh

9thIDdoc said:


> Oh please we have just had several years of Dems accusing every one who doesn't share their agenda with every crime misdemeanor and/or perversion they can think of without the first shred of evidence. Best expect the shoe to be on the other foot if Biden should actually manage to sleeze his way into office and for impeachment proceedings to commence immediately. Besides who are you to claim the evidence is invalid before it is even all presented? If those States have accepted illegal votes or deliberately encouraged illegal voting in a Federal election they have committed a crime against the Nation.


Wow. So because you feel wronged over something completely different that affects this election how?

That fails basic logic. Sorry your feewings were hewt snowflake  but like...tough shit. You don't get to overturn an election based on your feelings.

As far as evidence...it's been over a month and about 60 court cases...when were you planning on presenting this "evidence"?


----------



## iceberg

Toro said:


> The TX lawsuit just regurgitates old claims that have already been thrown out of court, including claims by the drunk lady in MI.
> 
> View attachment 427007
> 
> 
> rofl


then it should be ok with you as this is all you do. 

regurgitate shit with every post to keep the WAH I HATE TRUMP WAH theme going.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> yet the SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case.
> 
> 
> 
> They have to hear it to dismiss it.
Click to expand...


Except that dismissing it isn't a requirement, Fart.  The Supreme Court also has the option of just refusing the case.


----------



## Rogue AI

colfax_m said:


> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> If they didn't understand - here is video showing fraud, here is the mathematical impossibility of what you say happened, happening, a conceptual idea of -
> Laws were passed
> Laws were not followed
> Is not going to be understood.
> 
> 
> 
> You'd think that you'd have won some court cases if these allegations were backed up with _so much evidence. _
Click to expand...


The evidence in the Texas suit is state legislation as the source, then memoranda and other unlawful communications that directly violated said legislation.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> My favorite cult argument is "Oh, Orange Jesus appointed three Justices, so they'll rule is in his favor."
> 
> rofl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a deeply corrupt argument. As if the justices are more loyal to Trump personally for appoint them......then to the law or the constitution.
Click to expand...


"It's a deeply corrupt argument, this one that I have ASSumed you're making because it's the one I would make."

Too bad for you that the argument we're ACTUALLY making is that the Justices in question are loyal to law and order.


----------



## iceberg

Cecilie1200 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> yet the SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case.
> 
> 
> 
> They have to hear it to dismiss it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that dismissing it isn't a requirement, Fart.  The Supreme Court also has the option of just refusing the case.
Click to expand...

whole lot of farting in here these days.

i fear i started a bad trend with the duck.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AceRothstein said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> My favorite cult argument is "Oh, Orange Jesus appointed three Justices, so they'll rule is in his favor."
> 
> rofl
> 
> 
> 
> The Trump cult thinks everyone else is as partisan as they are.
Click to expand...


More projection from the left.


----------



## iceberg

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> My favorite cult argument is "Oh, Orange Jesus appointed three Justices, so they'll rule is in his favor."
> 
> rofl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a deeply corrupt argument. As if the justices are more loyal to Trump personally for appoint them......then to the law or the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It's a deeply corrupt argument, this one that I have ASSumed you're making because it's the one I would make."
> 
> Too bad for you that the argument we're ACTUALLY making is that the Justices in question are loyal to law and order.
Click to expand...

she doesn't argue, just throws out distractions.


----------



## bripat9643

postman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means if you smoke pot in California and get away with it, that Georgia can't arrest you for smoking pot in California.
> 
> 
> 
> If you get a traffic ticket in CA, and then buy insurance in Wisconsin, that ticket will show on your record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with breaking the law?
Click to expand...

You get traffic tickets for breaking the law, moron.


----------



## Cecilie1200

meaner gene said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, PA is the only state of the four where the legislature did change the law, but their STATE CONSTITUTION was violated that specified how the mail-in vote was to be counted, and the government of PA simply ignored their own state Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are they in federal court, there is no federal issue, as you said, it's a matter of their state constitution.  That's what state courts are for.
Click to expand...


Because violating their state constitution is the violation of the US Constitution . . . which has only been explained 47 times on this thread that you didn't bother reading before barging in to lecture us on the topic you didn't bother to read about first.


----------



## bripat9643

postman said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> Did the states bypass their own constitution and laws to change voting laws?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. Do you have any examples from the lawsuit that you think are relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the argument seems to be that the state constitution has rules for "absentee ballots", and they sought to create a new class of balloting not defined in the constitution
> 
> So the state legislature created a new type of ballot, called a "mail-in" ballot, under rules the state legislature enacted.
Click to expand...

They created it after the fact.


----------



## Claudette

JGalt said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know the reason Texas is doing this, don't you?  States can sue each other for a number of reasons but when this happens, *states can skip the trial court and go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. *
> 
> Slick move, Texas.
Click to expand...


Yup and I just read that Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana Mississippi, South Carolina and South Dakota are ready to jump in on the Texas Suite.


----------



## postman

iceberg said:


> and this is what i am trying to find out in the end.
> 
> 1 - what is the documented process for the state to change their elections laws?
> 2 - was the processes followed in order to do so?



This is where PA becomes tricky.  The legislature wrote a new law, where the absentee ballot law specified in their constitution dealt with people not present in the state for the election.  The new law (under a different name aka Mail-in) dealt with people present inside the state at the time of the election.

Their argument is that the new mail-in law, is functionally the same as the absentee law, and should follow the rules of the absentee law in their constitution.


----------



## mascale

More likely the Supreme Court will seek guidance in the original intent of the Constitution adopters, found in Federalist 59.  What Texas Attorney General is now doing is what was specifically alarming to the Constitution adopters.  The Elections Clause was specifically included in the document to prevent Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama--(possibly controlled by Vladimir Putin(?)--to gang up on the states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia--(possibly controlled by ancestries related to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison).  It was recognized at that time that money and influence could happen:  Even in France(?)!

*So the Congress was given the elections regulating authority:  And clearly as matter of National Security.  Then see the referenced states attempting intervention in the other states.

Just today, it is noted that Donald John Trump, Juvenile--(the family adults are hard to tell apart)--is not too up on U. S. National Security.  Instead there is a Twitter message promising unilateral "Intervention" at the Supreme Court(?).  The language of warfare is unmistakably noticeable.*



			The Avalon Project : Federalist No 59
		


"Crow, James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(For a real sniff of foreign intervention:  See Deut 23:  19-20, about the gouging and screwing that Moses likely learned as kid--from Acts 7 a household art and skill of Pharaoh!)


----------



## postman

Cecilie1200 said:


> Because violating their state constitution is the violation of the US Constitution . . . which has only been explained 47 times on this thread that you didn't bother reading before barging in to lecture us on the topic you didn't bother to read about first.



Didn't you read the "faithless electors" case.  The SC essentially said what a state does with their electors is their own business.

How they chose their electors is their own business.


----------



## postman

bripat9643 said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the state legislature created a new type of ballot, called a "mail-in" ballot, under rules the state legislature enacted.
> 
> 
> 
> They created it after the fact.
Click to expand...


They created it in 2019.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

LoneLaugher said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have said here is untrue.
Click to expand...


No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.


----------



## iceberg

postman said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> and this is what i am trying to find out in the end.
> 
> 1 - what is the documented process for the state to change their elections laws?
> 2 - was the processes followed in order to do so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where PA becomes tricky.  The legislature wrote a new law, where the absentee ballot law specified in their constitution dealt with people not present in the state for the election.  The new law (under a different name aka Mail-in) dealt with people present inside the state at the time of the election.
> 
> Their argument is that the new mail-in law, is functionally the same as the absentee law, and should follow the rules of the absentee law in their constitution.
Click to expand...

so - the law changed was around absentee ballots? well you request those, from what i understand, they just sent out ballots people could mail back unsolicited.

you can't in my mind "widen" the scope of the law by just tacking onto it again, without proper process and going through our legislature to discuss and vote on it. for the gov / elected official to simply say "yea it's fine" is a power grab to me as they are not authorized to do so.

circumventing separation of powers is bad juju to me. i think EO's do it and hated the trend of obama doing it and trump following suit. if our process are so broken we have to take individual action AND JUSTIFY IT, then we need to fix said processes ASAP.


----------



## iceberg

mascale said:


> More likely the Supreme Court will seek guidance in the original intent of the Constitution adopters, found in Federalist 59.  What Texas Attorney General is now doing is what was specifically alarming to the Constitution adopters.  The Elections Clause was specifically included in the document to prevent Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama--(possibly controlled by Vladimir Putin(?)--to gang up on the states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia--(possibly controlled by ancestries related to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison).  It was recognized at that time that money and influence could happen:  Even in France(?)!
> 
> *So the Congress was given the elections regulating authority:  And clearly as matter of National Security.  Then see the referenced states attempting intervention in the other states.
> 
> Just today, it is noted that Donald John Trump, Juvenile--(the family adults are hard to tell apart)--is not too up on U. S. National Security.  Instead there is a Twitter message promising unilateral "Intervention" at the Supreme Court(?).  The language of warfare is unmistakably noticeable.*
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : Federalist No 59
> 
> 
> 
> "Crow, James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred!"
> (For a real sniff of foreign intervention:  See Deut 23:  19-20, about the gouging and screwing that Moses likely learned as kid--from Acts 7 a household art and skill of Pharaoh!)


oh shut the fuck up.

controlled by putin.
and
all my guys are the founding forefathers and such...

and you wonder why no one takes you seriously.


----------



## mascale

Mostly the Texas Supreme Court Lawsuit is not getting much coverage, anywhere.   Curiously, that appears to be what the Framer's Intended.

More likely the Supreme Court will seek guidance in the original intent of the Constitution adopters, found in Federalist 59. What Texas Attorney General is now doing is what was specifically alarming to the Constitution adopters. The Elections Clause was specifically included in the document to prevent Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama--(possibly controlled by Vladimir Putin(?))--to gang up on the states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia--(possibly controlled by ancestries related to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison). It was recognized at that time that money and influence could happen: Even in France(?)!

*So the Congress was given the elections regulating authority: And clearly as a matter of National Security. Then see the referenced states attempting intervention in the other states.

Just today, it is noted that Donald John Trump, Juvenile--(the family adults are hard to tell apart)--is not too up on U. S. National Security. Instead there is a Twitter message promising unilateral "Intervention" at the Supreme Court(?). The language of warfare is unmistakably noticeable.*

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 59

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(For a real sniff of foreign intervention: See Deut 23: 19-20, about the gouging and screwing that Moses likely learned as kid--from Acts 7 a household art and skill of Pharaoh!)


----------



## colfax_m

postman said:


> the argument seems to be that the state constitution has rules for "absentee ballots", and they sought to create a new class of balloting not defined in the constitution
> 
> So the state legislature created a new type of ballot, called a "mail-in" ballot, under rules the state legislature enacted.


Actually that's a different case, not brought up in the Texas lawsuit.

The Texas lawsuit is claiming that legislatures have exclusive ability to decide on the manner of choosing electors, so it wouldn't make sense that they bring up a claim stating that the legislature couldn't do something to decide on the manner of choosing electors.

In a funny way, this case is arguing against the other one.


----------



## mascale

Federalist 59 was intended to prohibit what illiterate Iceberg poster clearly intends--Foreign intervention and interstate bullying as an election outcome!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(For a real sniff of foreign intervention: See Deut 23: 19-20, about the gouging and screwing that Moses likely learned as kid--from Acts 7 a household art and skill of Pharaoh!)


----------



## Rogue AI

The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.


----------



## postman

iceberg said:


> so - the law changed was around absentee ballots? well you request those, from what i understand, they just sent out ballots people could mail back unsolicited.



The Pennsylvania mail-in ballot law, still required a ballot solicitation by the voter.  It just created a new type of mail-in ballot.  Absentee was for those outside the state at the time of the election, or who could not get to the polls due to job, health etc.  The other was for people at their residence for the election to get a mail-in ballot.

This was mail-in NOT universal aka unsolicited mail-in


----------



## Billiejeens

postman said:


> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court gives great deference to the courts of the states. After all, who knows more about the legislative intent, than those that wrote it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Courts don't write legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Case law defines legislation.
> In essence they write the regulations.
Click to expand...


No


----------



## postman

iceberg said:


> you can't in my mind "widen" the scope of the law by just tacking onto it again, without proper process and going through our legislature to discuss and vote on it. for the gov / elected official to simply say "yea it's fine" is a power grab to me as they are not authorized to do so.



They didn't widen, the state legislature wrote a completely new law.  Not bound by any previous law, and not restricted by the constitution, which only defined "absentee ballots"


----------



## Dragonlady

iceberg said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one that went through the legislature.
> 
> *Harrisburg, PA* – Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with voter-friendly election reforms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Governor Wolf Signs Election Reform Bill Including New Mail-in Voting
> 
> 
> Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.governor.pa.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and that was pre-covid. what did PA do *after* covid to change their systems?
> 
> nice try but i'm not chasing your turds down the toilet. please stick to the lawsuit.
Click to expand...


You're far too busy chasing Trump's turds down the toilet.  The Texas lawsuit will be tossed as well.  

When someone tries to overturn the results of a democratic election, it's call a "coup d'etat".  Trump is committing sedition in broad daylight, just like his obstruction of justice.  That Republicans are cheering him on in this attempt is proof positive that the Republican Party needs to be burned to the ground.


----------



## postman

colfax_m said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> the argument seems to be that the state constitution has rules for "absentee ballots", and they sought to create a new class of balloting not defined in the constitution
> 
> So the state legislature created a new type of ballot, called a "mail-in" ballot, under rules the state legislature enacted.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that's a different case, not brought up in the Texas lawsuit.
> 
> The Texas lawsuit is claiming that legislatures have exclusive ability to decide on the manner of choosing electors, so it wouldn't make sense that they bring up a claim stating that the legislature couldn't do something to decide on the manner of choosing electors.
> 
> In a funny way, this case is arguing against the other one.
Click to expand...

They claimed  Pennsylvanias "mail-in" ballots were in violation of the PA constitution.


----------



## Billiejeens

mascale said:


> More likely the Supreme Court will seek guidance in the original intent of the Constitution adopters, found in Federalist 59.  What Texas Attorney General is now doing is what was specifically alarming to the Constitution adopters.  The Elections Clause was specifically included in the document to prevent Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama--(possibly controlled by Vladimir Putin(?)--to gang up on the states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia--(possibly controlled by ancestries related to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison).  It was recognized at that time that money and influence could happen:  Even in France(?)!
> 
> *So the Congress was given the elections regulating authority:  And clearly as matter of National Security.  Then see the referenced states attempting intervention in the other states.
> 
> Just today, it is noted that Donald John Trump, Juvenile--(the family adults are hard to tell apart)--is not too up on U. S. National Security.  Instead there is a Twitter message promising unilateral "Intervention" at the Supreme Court(?).  The language of warfare is unmistakably noticeable.*
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : Federalist No 59
> 
> 
> 
> "Crow, James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred!"
> (For a real sniff of foreign intervention:  See Deut 23:  19-20, about the gouging and screwing that Moses likely learned as kid--from Acts 7 a household art and skill of Pharaoh!)




You are a riot.


----------



## postman

Billiejeens said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Case law defines legislation.
> In essence they write the regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> No
Click to expand...

_
Historically and technically, a “*gun*” is an artillery piece, i.e. a howitzer, *or* a crew-served machine *gun*, an anti-tank artillery piece, anti-aircraft artillery, naval artillery, etc. A *firearm* is a man-portable *weapon* that is fired from the hand *or* the shoulder *or* from a bipod._

If the legislature fails to define "gun", then that devolves onto the courts.


----------



## Claudette

Dragonlady said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one that went through the legislature.
> 
> *Harrisburg, PA* – Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with voter-friendly election reforms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Governor Wolf Signs Election Reform Bill Including New Mail-in Voting
> 
> 
> Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.governor.pa.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and that was pre-covid. what did PA do *after* covid to change their systems?
> 
> nice try but i'm not chasing your turds down the toilet. please stick to the lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're far too busy chasing Trump's turds down the toilet.  The Texas lawsuit will be tossed as well.
> 
> When someone tries to overturn the results of a democratic election, it's call a "coup d'etat".  Trump is committing sedition in broad daylight, just like his obstruction of justice.  That Republicans are cheering him on in this attempt is proof positive that the Republican Party needs to be burned to the ground.
Click to expand...


Its not just Texas. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and South Dakota are getting in on this suite.


----------



## Billiejeens

postman said:


> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Case law defines legislation.
> In essence they write the regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> Historically and technically, a “*gun*” is an artillery piece, i.e. a howitzer, *or* a crew-served machine *gun*, an anti-tank artillery piece, anti-aircraft artillery, naval artillery, etc. A *firearm* is a man-portable *weapon* that is fired from the hand *or* the shoulder *or* from a bipod._
> 
> If the legislature fails to define "gun", then that devolves onto the courts.
Click to expand...


So we agree that courts don't 
Or are not supposed to
Write legislation.
They are tasked with interpreting legislation.


----------



## mascale

Mostly, Constitutional matters seem to empower Congress.  Texas is not Empowered.  The intent of any jurisprudence more is more likely reliant on Federalist 59!  Even the creation of the Civil War Amendments did not limit or curtail the original framing of "The Elections Clause!"

*The Elections Clause*

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the *Congress* may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

U.S. Const. Article I, §4, cl. 1.

*Day of Choosing Presidential Electors Clause

The Congress* may determine the Time of chusing the [Presidential] Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

U.S. Const. Article II, §1, cl. 4.

*Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause*

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

*The Congress* shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

U.S. Const. XIV, §§1 & 5.

*Fifteenth Amendment*

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

*The Congress* shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

U.S. Const. XV, §§1 & 2.

*Power as Regards Different Types of Elections*
Although the Constitution is silent on various aspects of the voting process, the Constitution seems to anticipate that states would be primarily responsible for establishing procedures for elections. Federal authority to direct how states administer these regulations, however, is also provided for in the Constitution. Congress's power is at its most broad in the case of House elections, which have historically always been decided by a system of popular voting.13 Its power may be more limited in elections for Senators or President, and is at its narrowest as regards state elections.
________________________
"Crow, James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred!
(For a real sniff of foreign intervention: See Deut 23: 19-20, about the gouging and screwing that Moses likely learned as kid--from Acts 7 a household art and skill of Pharaoh!)


----------



## postman

Billiejeens said:


> So we agree that courts don't
> Or are not supposed to
> Write legislation.
> They are tasked with interpreting legislation.


They don't write the book.
But they edit it for clarity.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> Did the states bypass their own constitution and laws to change voting laws?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. Do you have any examples from the lawsuit that you think are relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the argument seems to be that the state constitution has rules for "absentee ballots", and they sought to create a new class of balloting not defined in the constitution
> 
> So the state legislature created a new type of ballot, called a "mail-in" ballot, under rules the state legislature enacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They created it after the fact.
Click to expand...

Fucking moron, Pennsylvania used mail-in ballots in their primary election in accordance with the new law. Republicans had their opportunity then to challenge the constitutionality of that law if it were really a problem for them. They don't get to sit on that position and wait to see if they win or lose an election, and then attempt to disenfranchise 2.6 million voters because they lost the election over a law that was constitutional when the election was held and the voters followed the law.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Rogue AI said:


> The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.



Probably?  Seems you've already decided that "liberal shills" acted improperly or illegally.  Odd isn't it that nearly three dozen appeals by the Trump Supporters have been rejected by the Federal Court System.  It also seems that most of the judges have been appointed by Republican Presidents.  

What is not probable are the facts that the GOP is closely acting with a seditious intent, and also close to violation US Code for inciting a riot:

18 U.S. Code § 2102 -  Definitions

An not only Federal Judges and justices, but state justices and judges + AG Barr have found no fraud:









						High court rejects GOP bid to halt Biden's Pennsylvania win
					

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republicans' last-gasp bid to reverse Pennsylvania's certification of President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the electoral battleground.  The court without comment refused to call into question the certification process in Pennsylvania.  Democratic Gov. Tom...




					news.yahoo.com


----------



## Rogue AI

Rye Catcher said:


> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably?  Seems you've already decided that "liberal shills" acted improperly or illegally.  Odd isn't it that nearly three dozen appeals by the Trump Supporters have been rejected by the Federal Court System.  It also seems that most of the judges have been appointed by Republican Presidents.
> 
> What is not probable are the facts that the GOP is closely acting with a seditious intent, and also close to violation US Code for inciting a riot:
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2102 -  Definitions
> 
> An not only Federal Judges and justices, but state justices and judges + AG Barr have found no fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High court rejects GOP bid to halt Biden's Pennsylvania win
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republicans' last-gasp bid to reverse Pennsylvania's certification of President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the electoral battleground.  The court without comment refused to call into question the certification process in Pennsylvania.  Democratic Gov. Tom...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
Click to expand...

They did act illegally.  You folks are in for some disappointment.  This is about state election officials and their illegal actions that removed all safeguards to fair and free elections.


----------



## ThoughtCrimes

Rogue AI said:


> The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.


Your statement in reply to the OP can only be evaluated as another ignorant partisan hack venting his spleen of election Blue Bile! 

Tissue?


----------



## LoneLaugher

LordBrownTrout said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have said here is untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.
Click to expand...


The laws were followed in each state.


----------



## mascale

On the one hand, don't forget to open up the link in the OP(?), Read it(?), and Weep(?)!  

Then effectively look what Texas can be inferred to intend, by way of Amendment 15:   "*The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State* on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude

*The Texas lawsuit intends that the right to vote be denied or abridged!*

"Crow, James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(For a real sniff of foreign intervention: See Deut 23: 19-20, about the gouging and screwing that Moses likely learned as kid--from Acts 7 a household art and skill of Pharaoh!)


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

mascale said:


> Mostly the Texas Supreme Court Lawsuit is not getting much coverage, anywhere.   Curiously, that appears to be what the Framer's Intended.
> 
> More likely the Supreme Court will seek guidance in the original intent of the Constitution adopters, found in Federalist 59. What Texas Attorney General is now doing is what was specifically alarming to the Constitution adopters. The Elections Clause was specifically included in the document to prevent Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama--(possibly controlled by Vladimir Putin(?))--to gang up on the states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia--(possibly controlled by ancestries related to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison). It was recognized at that time that money and influence could happen: Even in France(?)!
> 
> *So the Congress was given the elections regulating authority: And clearly as a matter of National Security. Then see the referenced states attempting intervention in the other states.
> 
> Just today, it is noted that Donald John Trump, Juvenile--(the family adults are hard to tell apart)--is not too up on U. S. National Security. Instead there is a Twitter message promising unilateral "Intervention" at the Supreme Court(?). The language of warfare is unmistakably noticeable.*
> 
> The Avalon Project : Federalist No 59
> 
> "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
> (For a real sniff of foreign intervention: See Deut 23: 19-20, about the gouging and screwing that Moses likely learned as kid--from Acts 7 a household art and skill of Pharaoh!)


Texas is under the control of the Russians? 

Unlike the democrats who are under control of the Chinese 

Oy


----------



## OKTexas

What the hell are you babbling about?

.


----------



## Dragonlady

Claudette said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one that went through the legislature.
> 
> *Harrisburg, PA* – Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with voter-friendly election reforms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Governor Wolf Signs Election Reform Bill Including New Mail-in Voting
> 
> 
> Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.governor.pa.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and that was pre-covid. what did PA do *after* covid to change their systems?
> 
> nice try but i'm not chasing your turds down the toilet. please stick to the lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're far too busy chasing Trump's turds down the toilet.  The Texas lawsuit will be tossed as well.
> 
> When someone tries to overturn the results of a democratic election, it's call a "coup d'etat".  Trump is committing sedition in broad daylight, just like his obstruction of justice.  That Republicans are cheering him on in this attempt is proof positive that the Republican Party needs to be burned to the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not just Texas. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and South Dakota are getting in on this suite.
Click to expand...


Is this a multi-bedroom suite or an orgy room?  

The Republican Party, or what passes for the Republican Party, has lost its mind, and is now participating in an attempt coup against the legally elected government of the United States of America.  Who elected these idiots as AG's in these states?

American conservatives have now completely abandoned the idea of a Constitutional Republic, and utterly embraced authoritarianism.


----------



## mascale

Then effectively look what Texas can be inferred to intend, by way of Amendment 15: "*The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State* on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude

*The Texas lawsuit intends that the right to vote be denied or abridged!* 

Anyone has noticed that lawyers have been pleading for the Courts to start imposing sanctions for the frivolous, Trumped-Up related, lawsuits!

"Crow, James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(For a real sniff of foreign intervention: See Deut 23: 19-20, about the gouging and screwing that Moses likely learned as kid--from Acts 7 a household art and skill of Pharaoh!)


----------



## Rye Catcher

Rogue AI said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably?  Seems you've already decided that "liberal shills" acted improperly or illegally.  Odd isn't it that nearly three dozen appeals by the Trump Supporters have been rejected by the Federal Court System.  It also seems that most of the judges have been appointed by Republican Presidents.
> 
> What is not probable are the facts that the GOP is closely acting with a seditious intent, and also close to violation US Code for inciting a riot:
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2102 -  Definitions
> 
> An not only Federal Judges and justices, but state justices and judges + AG Barr have found no fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High court rejects GOP bid to halt Biden's Pennsylvania win
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republicans' last-gasp bid to reverse Pennsylvania's certification of President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the electoral battleground.  The court without comment refused to call into question the certification process in Pennsylvania.  Democratic Gov. Tom...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did act illegally.  You folks are in for some disappointment.  This is about state election officials and their illegal actions that removed all safeguards to fair and free elections.
Click to expand...


If they have been found to have NOT committed Fraud, what crime do you have evidence to prove your opinion?

We all know, even you, that Donald Trump is a pathological liar.  His word is not worth a confederate dollar.

Pathological liar:  Pathological Liar: How to Cope with Someone’s Compulsive Lies


----------



## boilermaker55

You mean this crook
*FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says*

The FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Associated Press reported Tuesday evening, vetting allegations made by eight of Paxton’s former top aides that he illegally used the power of his office to benefit a political donor.

Two unnamed sources told the AP that the bureau was examining claims made by the whistleblowers that Paxton broke the law by intervening several times in legal matters involving Nate Paul, a real estate investor and friend who donated $25,000 to Paxton’s campaign in 2018.

Just another tRUMP crook
And texASS always screams the loudest about state "sovereignty " the F*cking hypocrites/



mascale said:


> Mostly the Texas Supreme Court Lawsuit is not getting much coverage, anywhere.   Curiously, that appears to be what the Framer's Intended.
> 
> More likely the Supreme Court will seek guidance in the original intent of the Constitution adopters, found in Federalist 59. What Texas Attorney General is now doing is what was specifically alarming to the Constitution adopters. The Elections Clause was specifically included in the document to prevent Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama--(possibly controlled by Vladimir Putin(?))--to gang up on the states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia--(possibly controlled by ancestries related to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison). It was recognized at that time that money and influence could happen: Even in France(?)!
> 
> *So the Congress was given the elections regulating authority: And clearly as a matter of National Security. Then see the referenced states attempting intervention in the other states.
> 
> Just today, it is noted that Donald John Trump, Juvenile--(the family adults are hard to tell apart)--is not too up on U. S. National Security. Instead there is a Twitter message promising unilateral "Intervention" at the Supreme Court(?). The language of warfare is unmistakably noticeable.*
> 
> The Avalon Project : Federalist No 59
> 
> "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
> (For a real sniff of foreign intervention: See Deut 23: 19-20, about the gouging and screwing that Moses likely learned as kid--from Acts 7 a household art and skill of Pharaoh!)


----------



## boilermaker55

*FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says*
You mean this crook.
And then texASS cries about state sovereignty 
Blow it out your ASS. texASS.




JimBowie1958 said:


> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
Click to expand...


----------



## Ben Thomson

Rogue AI said:


> The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.


Which is why the SCOTUS ruled 9-0 against republican attempts to overturn Pennsylvania's election.


----------



## JimBowie1958

^^^^- another dumbass post.


----------



## Rogue AI

ThoughtCrimes said:


> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement in reply to the OP can only be evaluated as another ignorant partisan hack venting his spleen of election Blue Bile!
> 
> Tissue?
Click to expand...

Your lame reply can only be evaluated as you being an idiot. You folks still don't get what this is about because the liberal media isn't talking about it.


----------



## Billiejeens

postman said:


> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we agree that courts don't
> Or are not supposed to
> Write legislation.
> They are tasked with interpreting legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't write the book.
> But they edit it for clarity.
Click to expand...


No


----------



## Billiejeens

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> Did the states bypass their own constitution and laws to change voting laws?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. Do you have any examples from the lawsuit that you think are relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the argument seems to be that the state constitution has rules for "absentee ballots", and they sought to create a new class of balloting not defined in the constitution
> 
> So the state legislature created a new type of ballot, called a "mail-in" ballot, under rules the state legislature enacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They created it after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking moron, Pennsylvania used mail-in ballots in their primary election in accordance with the new law. Republicans had their opportunity then to challenge the constitutionality of that law if it were really a problem for them. They don't get to sit on that position and wait to see if they win or lose an election, and then attempt to disenfranchise 2.6 million voters because they lost the election over a law that was constitutional when the election was held and the voters followed the law.
Click to expand...



Poor fawn.


----------



## Rogue AI

Ben Thomson said:


> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why the ruled 9-0 against republican attempts to overturn Pennsylvania's election.
Click to expand...

They didn't deny cert. They denied immediate injunction. Your liberal media is misinforming you again.


----------



## Claudette

Dragonlady said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one that went through the legislature.
> 
> *Harrisburg, PA* – Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with voter-friendly election reforms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Governor Wolf Signs Election Reform Bill Including New Mail-in Voting
> 
> 
> Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.governor.pa.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and that was pre-covid. what did PA do *after* covid to change their systems?
> 
> nice try but i'm not chasing your turds down the toilet. please stick to the lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're far too busy chasing Trump's turds down the toilet.  The Texas lawsuit will be tossed as well.
> 
> When someone tries to overturn the results of a democratic election, it's call a "coup d'etat".  Trump is committing sedition in broad daylight, just like his obstruction of justice.  That Republicans are cheering him on in this attempt is proof positive that the Republican Party needs to be burned to the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not just Texas. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and South Dakota are getting in on this suite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this a multi-bedroom suite or an orgy room?
> 
> The Republican Party, or what passes for the Republican Party, has lost its mind, and is now participating in an attempt coup against the legally elected government of the United States of America.  Who elected these idiots as AG's in these states?
> 
> American conservatives have now completely abandoned the idea of a Constitutional Republic, and utterly embraced authoritarianism.
Click to expand...


Go back to Canada and bug your own people you fucking idiot.


----------



## Billiejeens

Rogue AI said:


> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement in reply to the OP can only be evaluated as another ignorant partisan hack venting his spleen of election Blue Bile!
> 
> Tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your lame reply can only be evaluated as you being an idiot. You folks still don't get what this is about because the liberal media isn't talking about it.
Click to expand...


They are bubblecultists


----------



## Concerned American

busybee01 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
Click to expand...

Thanks, where did you earn your law degree?  A box of Coco Puffs?


----------



## Care4all

iceberg said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> this coming from someone who can't point out how these states followed their own constitutional laws.
> 
> check mate son. tired of this ball of yarn in front of the kitty game with you. you failed miserably to state a single fact around the case, just spout shit and keep diverting.
> 
> as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> You're putting the cart in front of the horse. We can worry about the merits of the case after we demonstrate that the case is able to be brought at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again you simply can't say that these, states followed their own laws.
> 
> Pathetic.
Click to expand...

The citizens that voted did...they followed the law....  and by super majority, they voted for Biden to be President.

They voted via the laws in front of them, which they were told was a legal way to vote, by  State Supreme court's rulings in the suits in the courts.

Disenfranchising these citizen of their constitutional right to vote, 

just aint gonna happen... 

their legislature choosing electors of their own and not electors representing who their citizens in good faith voted for, is STEALING the election from them.


----------



## iceberg

Care4all said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> this coming from someone who can't point out how these states followed their own constitutional laws.
> 
> check mate son. tired of this ball of yarn in front of the kitty game with you. you failed miserably to state a single fact around the case, just spout shit and keep diverting.
> 
> as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> You're putting the cart in front of the horse. We can worry about the merits of the case after we demonstrate that the case is able to be brought at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again you simply can't say that these, states followed their own laws.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The citizens that voted did...they followed the law....  and by super majority, they voted for Biden to be President.
> 
> They voted via the laws in front of them, which they were told was a legal way to vote, by  State Supreme court's rulings in the suits in the courts.
> 
> Disenfranchising these citizen of their constitutional right to vote,
> 
> just aint gonna happen...
> 
> their legislature choosing electors of their own and not electors representing who their citizens in good faith voted for, is STEALING the election from them.
Click to expand...

But it's fine if you steal it from them.


----------



## Concerned American

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
> 
> So much for "state's rights."
Click to expand...

The US Constitution protects ALL states, not just swing states.  When those swing states violated US constitutional provisions, they violated the rights of the people in every other state.  SMH  democrats think rights only apply to them.


----------



## Concerned American

Care4all said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> this coming from someone who can't point out how these states followed their own constitutional laws.
> 
> check mate son. tired of this ball of yarn in front of the kitty game with you. you failed miserably to state a single fact around the case, just spout shit and keep diverting.
> 
> as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> You're putting the cart in front of the horse. We can worry about the merits of the case after we demonstrate that the case is able to be brought at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again you simply can't say that these, states followed their own laws.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The citizens that voted did...they followed the law....  and by super majority, they voted for Biden to be President.
> 
> They voted via the laws in front of them, which they were told was a legal way to vote, by  State Supreme court's rulings in the suits in the courts.
> 
> Disenfranchising these citizen of their constitutional right to vote,
> 
> just aint gonna happen...
> 
> their legislature choosing electors of their own and not electors representing who their citizens in good faith voted for, is STEALING the election from them.
Click to expand...

The democrat leadership of those states allowed for unconstitutional changes to be made to the voting laws.  You need to take your concerns up with them.


----------



## ThoughtCrimes

Rogue AI said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably?  Seems you've already decided that "liberal shills" acted improperly or illegally.  Odd isn't it that nearly three dozen appeals by the Trump Supporters have been rejected by the Federal Court System.  It also seems that most of the judges have been appointed by Republican Presidents.
> 
> What is not probable are the facts that the GOP is closely acting with a seditious intent, and also close to violation US Code for inciting a riot:
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2102 -  Definitions
> 
> An not only Federal Judges and justices, but state justices and judges + AG Barr have found no fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High court rejects GOP bid to halt Biden's Pennsylvania win
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republicans' last-gasp bid to reverse Pennsylvania's certification of President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the electoral battleground.  The court without comment refused to call into question the certification process in Pennsylvania.  Democratic Gov. Tom...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did act illegally.  You folks are in for some disappointment.  This is about state election officials and their illegal actions that removed all safeguards to fair and free elections.
Click to expand...




Rogue AI said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably?  Seems you've already decided that "liberal shills" acted improperly or illegally.  Odd isn't it that nearly three dozen appeals by the Trump Supporters have been rejected by the Federal Court System.  It also seems that most of the judges have been appointed by Republican Presidents.
> 
> What is not probable are the facts that the GOP is closely acting with a seditious intent, and also close to violation US Code for inciting a riot:
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2102 -  Definitions
> 
> An not only Federal Judges and justices, but state justices and judges + AG Barr have found no fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High court rejects GOP bid to halt Biden's Pennsylvania win
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republicans' last-gasp bid to reverse Pennsylvania's certification of President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the electoral battleground.  The court without comment refused to call into question the certification process in Pennsylvania.  Democratic Gov. Tom...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did act illegally.  You folks are in for some disappointment.  This is about state election officials and their illegal actions that removed all safeguards to fair and free elections.
Click to expand...




Rogue AI said:


> They did act illegally. You folks are in for some disappointment. This is about state election officials and their illegal actions that removed all safeguards to fair and free elections.


Cite those instances when state election officials and their "illegal actions" removed all safeguards to fair and free elections and a Title 3 Court's adjudicated decision stated such AS YOU CLAIM! Given you are so sure you have the truth, spread it around and let everyone else in on your vast knowledge of the electoral litigation which has transpired over the last month!


----------



## Turtlesoup

Lesh said:


> In order to sue...you have to have standing. That means that you have to show that you were harmed by an action you are seeking to litigate.
> 
> Texas has no standing. They can not show where they were harmed by how another state runs their election
> 
> *DENIED*


The Hell they can't---------GA and the others fraudulent votes changes the election and nullifies Texas's legal votes.   In essence, not only does the corrupt/inept system of these 4 states disenfranchise their voters, but it also disenfranchises all the LEGAL voters in the US.   And FYI, I think Texas has more ummmm republican judges appointed than obama ones for their federal district.   Saddle up, Texas has a good shot at this.


----------



## Care4all

bripat9643 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> 
> *did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? i*f no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> 
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO - yes.  Challenges have been upheld.  PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if I rob liqour store 'A' and get away with it, that means they can't arrest me for robbing liqour store 'B?'
Click to expand...

The citizens voting robbed no one.  They followed what they were told was a legal way to exercise their constitutional right to vote.


----------



## Care4all

Concerned American said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> this coming from someone who can't point out how these states followed their own constitutional laws.
> 
> check mate son. tired of this ball of yarn in front of the kitty game with you. you failed miserably to state a single fact around the case, just spout shit and keep diverting.
> 
> as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> You're putting the cart in front of the horse. We can worry about the merits of the case after we demonstrate that the case is able to be brought at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again you simply can't say that these, states followed their own laws.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The citizens that voted did...they followed the law....  and by super majority, they voted for Biden to be President.
> 
> They voted via the laws in front of them, which they were told was a legal way to vote, by  State Supreme court's rulings in the suits in the courts.
> 
> Disenfranchising these citizen of their constitutional right to vote,
> 
> just aint gonna happen...
> 
> their legislature choosing electors of their own and not electors representing who their citizens in good faith voted for, is STEALING the election from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The democrat leadership of those states allowed for unconstitutional changes to be made to the voting laws.  You need to take your concerns up with them.
Click to expand...

Not really....these cases were mostly adjudicated...


----------



## OKTexas

ThoughtCrimes said:


> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably?  Seems you've already decided that "liberal shills" acted improperly or illegally.  Odd isn't it that nearly three dozen appeals by the Trump Supporters have been rejected by the Federal Court System.  It also seems that most of the judges have been appointed by Republican Presidents.
> 
> What is not probable are the facts that the GOP is closely acting with a seditious intent, and also close to violation US Code for inciting a riot:
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2102 -  Definitions
> 
> An not only Federal Judges and justices, but state justices and judges + AG Barr have found no fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High court rejects GOP bid to halt Biden's Pennsylvania win
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republicans' last-gasp bid to reverse Pennsylvania's certification of President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the electoral battleground.  The court without comment refused to call into question the certification process in Pennsylvania.  Democratic Gov. Tom...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did act illegally.  You folks are in for some disappointment.  This is about state election officials and their illegal actions that removed all safeguards to fair and free elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably?  Seems you've already decided that "liberal shills" acted improperly or illegally.  Odd isn't it that nearly three dozen appeals by the Trump Supporters have been rejected by the Federal Court System.  It also seems that most of the judges have been appointed by Republican Presidents.
> 
> What is not probable are the facts that the GOP is closely acting with a seditious intent, and also close to violation US Code for inciting a riot:
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2102 -  Definitions
> 
> An not only Federal Judges and justices, but state justices and judges + AG Barr have found no fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High court rejects GOP bid to halt Biden's Pennsylvania win
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republicans' last-gasp bid to reverse Pennsylvania's certification of President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the electoral battleground.  The court without comment refused to call into question the certification process in Pennsylvania.  Democratic Gov. Tom...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did act illegally.  You folks are in for some disappointment.  This is about state election officials and their illegal actions that removed all safeguards to fair and free elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did act illegally. You folks are in for some disappointment. This is about state election officials and their illegal actions that removed all safeguards to fair and free elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cite those instances when state election officials and their "illegal actions" removed all safeguards to fair and free elections and a Title 3 Court's adjudicated decision stated such AS YOU CLAIM! Given you are so sure you have the truth, spread it around and let everyone else in on your vast knowledge of the electoral litigation which has transpired over the last month!
Click to expand...



The case in the OP has nothing to do with other cases, of course you know that, but deflection seems to be all you have. STFU.

.


----------



## Concerned American

Care4all said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> this coming from someone who can't point out how these states followed their own constitutional laws.
> 
> check mate son. tired of this ball of yarn in front of the kitty game with you. you failed miserably to state a single fact around the case, just spout shit and keep diverting.
> 
> as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> You're putting the cart in front of the horse. We can worry about the merits of the case after we demonstrate that the case is able to be brought at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again you simply can't say that these, states followed their own laws.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The citizens that voted did...they followed the law....  and by super majority, they voted for Biden to be President.
> 
> They voted via the laws in front of them, which they were told was a legal way to vote, by  State Supreme court's rulings in the suits in the courts.
> 
> Disenfranchising these citizen of their constitutional right to vote,
> 
> just aint gonna happen...
> 
> their legislature choosing electors of their own and not electors representing who their citizens in good faith voted for, is STEALING the election from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The democrat leadership of those states allowed for unconstitutional changes to be made to the voting laws.  You need to take your concerns up with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really....these cases were mostly adjudicated...
Click to expand...

Sorry, you are wrong, The SCOTUS has not ruled yet, that is why Kavanaugh, Kagan and Thomas are in those contested states.


----------



## mascale

The Texas matter has no litigated findings on which to rely.  One has to conjecture even this:  Have the Taxpayers of Texas separately funded an "Omniscience Machine," at the Office of State's Attorney General:  With infallible knowledge of matters in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin(?).  In the alternative--in the OP even--Putin is Rich, and with enough to create bribes.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(For a real sniff of foreign intervention: See Deut 23: 19-20, about the gouging and screwing that Moses likely learned as kid--from Acts 7 a household art and skill of Pharaoh!)


----------



## Turtlesoup

Care4all said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> this coming from someone who can't point out how these states followed their own constitutional laws.
> 
> check mate son. tired of this ball of yarn in front of the kitty game with you. you failed miserably to state a single fact around the case, just spout shit and keep diverting.
> 
> as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> You're putting the cart in front of the horse. We can worry about the merits of the case after we demonstrate that the case is able to be brought at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again you simply can't say that these, states followed their own laws.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The citizens that voted did...they followed the law....  and by super majority, they voted for Biden to be President.
> 
> They voted via the laws in front of them, which they were told was a legal way to vote, by  State Supreme court's rulings in the suits in the courts.
> 
> Disenfranchising these citizen of their constitutional right to vote,
> 
> just aint gonna happen...
> 
> their legislature choosing electors of their own and not electors representing who their citizens in good faith voted for, is STEALING the election from them.
Click to expand...

No dear---------biden doesn't have a following---------fake ballots and dead voters don't count.


----------



## g5000

Rogue AI said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably?  Seems you've already decided that "liberal shills" acted improperly or illegally.  Odd isn't it that nearly three dozen appeals by the Trump Supporters have been rejected by the Federal Court System.  It also seems that most of the judges have been appointed by Republican Presidents.
> 
> What is not probable are the facts that the GOP is closely acting with a seditious intent, and also close to violation US Code for inciting a riot:
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2102 -  Definitions
> 
> An not only Federal Judges and justices, but state justices and judges + AG Barr have found no fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High court rejects GOP bid to halt Biden's Pennsylvania win
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republicans' last-gasp bid to reverse Pennsylvania's certification of President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the electoral battleground.  The court without comment refused to call into question the certification process in Pennsylvania.  Democratic Gov. Tom...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did act illegally.  You folks are in for some disappointment.
Click to expand...

I'm sick of you deluded fools.  Let's put some real money where your mouth breathing idiocy is.  Let's make a $500 bet that Trump will not be sworn in on January 20.


----------



## Faun

Billiejeens said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> Did the states bypass their own constitution and laws to change voting laws?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. Do you have any examples from the lawsuit that you think are relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the argument seems to be that the state constitution has rules for "absentee ballots", and they sought to create a new class of balloting not defined in the constitution
> 
> So the state legislature created a new type of ballot, called a "mail-in" ballot, under rules the state legislature enacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They created it after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking moron, Pennsylvania used mail-in ballots in their primary election in accordance with the new law. Republicans had their opportunity then to challenge the constitutionality of that law if it were really a problem for them. They don't get to sit on that position and wait to see if they win or lose an election, and then attempt to disenfranchise 2.6 million voters because they lost the election over a law that was constitutional when the election was held and the voters followed the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor fawn.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

Yeah, poor me. Although, I'm not the one who lost by that case in court being dismissed, Impeached Trump was. So there's that.


----------



## Cecilie1200

The Original Tree said:


> *10 States have joined The Texas Law Suit now and there will be more. The Texas Lawsuit has Constitutional Merit on several fronts.
> 
> The four states being sued held illegal and invalid elections and new elections will have to be held.*



I don't believe a new election is an option, nor is it what Texas is asking for.  The legally-prescribed election deadlines do not allow for holding a second election.

What Texas is asking for is for the legislatures of those states to appoint the electors because the election was tainted by illegal actions on the part of the state governments.  Whether or not the Justices might have their own ideas about an appropriate remedy, I can't say.


----------



## Faun

Concerned American said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
> 
> So much for "state's rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The US Constitution protects ALL states, not just swing states.  When those swing states violated US constitutional provisions, they violated the rights of the people in every other state.  SMH  democrats think rights only apply to them.
Click to expand...

Wut?? What US constitutional provisions were violated?


----------



## Coyote

iceberg said:


> [
> and i would think on the surface these are valid counter arguments to the claim.
> 
> as for whether or not rules were applied equally, unfortunately that just depends on which website you read.
> 
> my main point is, i prefer going through the courts to settle disputes and sorting out the details. if trump loses, he loses. however i am not a lawyer and i don't think many in here are. we tend to mix and match as desired our feelings of a desired outcome with the legal process of getting there.
> 
> right or wrong, this is a valid way to address your concerns of our system. given other methods i've seen taking place, i far prefer the court method and am fine with allowing time w/o demonizing those pursuing this option we all have available to us.


I agree with most of that, particularly with the courts, with a few caveates.

If the goal is simply to run out the clock or create a situation where legislatures select electors, then I am not ok with it.  Given what judges have said, and how Guiliani had to back down from claiming fraud, it is beginning to look like it is.

Also, a very toxic by product of the situation is that Biden and his transition team has not been getting all the access and briefings they should have, regardless of ongoing legal challenges. For comparison, in Gore/Bush, BOTH men received the same briefings until it was resolved.  This has very real natuonal security concerns and domestic policy concerns, such as handling the Pandemic.


----------



## Cecilie1200

The Original Tree said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *10 States have joined The Texas Law Suit now and there will be more. The Texas Lawsuit has Constitutional Merit on several fronts.
> 
> The four states being sued held illegal and invalid elections and new elections will have to be held.*
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, who is the 10th?
> 
> Tell me the Hog Drovers joined in too?  Did they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Missouri just joined the Texas Lawsuit.
> 
> This is going to go all the way to SCOTUS because Texas will win every single case and The Democrats will have to appeal to SCOTUS and roll the dice.
> 
> My guess is that they will have to hold new elections in the 4 states.*
Click to expand...


*sigh*  I'm not sure what you're talking about with "go all the way to the SCOTUS" or "win every single case" or "will have to appeal to SCOTUS".  Texas filed its suit with the US Supreme Court, because that's who has jurisdiction over disputes between states.

And again, new elections are not an available remedy for the situation.


----------



## Faun

Concerned American said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> this coming from someone who can't point out how these states followed their own constitutional laws.
> 
> check mate son. tired of this ball of yarn in front of the kitty game with you. you failed miserably to state a single fact around the case, just spout shit and keep diverting.
> 
> as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> You're putting the cart in front of the horse. We can worry about the merits of the case after we demonstrate that the case is able to be brought at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again you simply can't say that these, states followed their own laws.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The citizens that voted did...they followed the law....  and by super majority, they voted for Biden to be President.
> 
> They voted via the laws in front of them, which they were told was a legal way to vote, by  State Supreme court's rulings in the suits in the courts.
> 
> Disenfranchising these citizen of their constitutional right to vote,
> 
> just aint gonna happen...
> 
> their legislature choosing electors of their own and not electors representing who their citizens in good faith voted for, is STEALING the election from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The democrat leadership of those states allowed for unconstitutional changes to be made to the voting laws.  You need to take your concerns up with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really....these cases were mostly adjudicated...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, you are wrong, The SCOTUS has not ruled yet, that is why Kavanaugh, Kagan and Thomas are in those contested states.
Click to expand...

Of course they ruled ... _*The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied*_


----------



## Faun

Turtlesoup said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> this coming from someone who can't point out how these states followed their own constitutional laws.
> 
> check mate son. tired of this ball of yarn in front of the kitty game with you. you failed miserably to state a single fact around the case, just spout shit and keep diverting.
> 
> as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> You're putting the cart in front of the horse. We can worry about the merits of the case after we demonstrate that the case is able to be brought at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again you simply can't say that these, states followed their own laws.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The citizens that voted did...they followed the law....  and by super majority, they voted for Biden to be President.
> 
> They voted via the laws in front of them, which they were told was a legal way to vote, by  State Supreme court's rulings in the suits in the courts.
> 
> Disenfranchising these citizen of their constitutional right to vote,
> 
> just aint gonna happen...
> 
> their legislature choosing electors of their own and not electors representing who their citizens in good faith voted for, is STEALING the election from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dear---------biden doesn't have a following---------fake ballots and dead voters don't count.
Click to expand...

You're right, dead voters don't count. They go to jail...









						Pa. man accused of trying to sign his dead mother up for mail-in voting
					

The Luzerne County man is facing felony forgery and elections interference charges, according to online court records.




					www.pennlive.com


----------



## g5000

Trump is a loser.  A YUGE loser.  The biggest sore loser of all time.

Trump would not even be president the first time around if he hadn't gotten a big leg up by Putin.

And Trump knows this.  It eats at him.  It eats and eats at him.  He can't stand this truth.

Now, without that help again, he has lost bigly.  A record number of 81 million voters stood in line to bitch slap the fat fuck.

That is eating at him, too.  He is such a thin skinned fat baby he can't take it.  He's trying to steal this election.  Trump is a dead man walking.  Wailing and thrashing around, showing us his true five year old character one last time.

81 million bitch slaps!  That's GOTTA hurt!


----------



## Coyote

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Just the will of the voters.
> 
> 
> 
> The will of the voters is not immune to the law of the land or superior to it.
> *What about the will of the voters who have been disenfranchised by a handful of key states*
> that have changed their voting laws to allow for a huge increase in mail in ballots that are illegally
> processed (as in Georgia in their "pipe bursting" incident)?
Click to expand...


That is a bad argument to attempt.  A minority of voters elected this president in 2016.  Were voters in the more populous states disenfranchised?


----------



## Concerned American

Faun said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> this coming from someone who can't point out how these states followed their own constitutional laws.
> 
> check mate son. tired of this ball of yarn in front of the kitty game with you. you failed miserably to state a single fact around the case, just spout shit and keep diverting.
> 
> as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> You're putting the cart in front of the horse. We can worry about the merits of the case after we demonstrate that the case is able to be brought at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again you simply can't say that these, states followed their own laws.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The citizens that voted did...they followed the law....  and by super majority, they voted for Biden to be President.
> 
> They voted via the laws in front of them, which they were told was a legal way to vote, by  State Supreme court's rulings in the suits in the courts.
> 
> Disenfranchising these citizen of their constitutional right to vote,
> 
> just aint gonna happen...
> 
> their legislature choosing electors of their own and not electors representing who their citizens in good faith voted for, is STEALING the election from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dear---------biden doesn't have a following---------fake ballots and dead voters don't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, dead voters don't count. They go to jail...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pa. man accused of trying to sign his dead mother up for mail-in voting
> 
> 
> The Luzerne County man is facing felony forgery and elections interference charges, according to online court records.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.pennlive.com
Click to expand...

Did you actually read what your wrote?  Please tell me where the jails are that incarcerate dead people even if they did vote


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they did. Your saying so does not make it true.
Click to expand...


The same can be said for your saying, "Yes, they DID follow the law, they DID they DID THEY DID!!"

The difference, of course, is that what Lord is saying can be backed up by the actual laws, and what you're saying is only backed up by your emotions.


----------



## Concerned American

Coyote said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Just the will of the voters.
> 
> 
> 
> The will of the voters is not immune to the law of the land or superior to it.
> *What about the will of the voters who have been disenfranchised by a handful of key states*
> that have changed their voting laws to allow for a huge increase in mail in ballots that are illegally
> processed (as in Georgia in their "pipe bursting" incident)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a bad argument to attempt.  A monority of voters elected this president in 2016.  Were voters in the more populous states disenfranchised?
Click to expand...

Go back to school and take a government class--pay close attention to the segment addressing the Electoral College and the founding fathers.  You may become enlightened, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Coyote

Concerned American said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Just the will of the voters.
> 
> 
> 
> The will of the voters is not immune to the law of the land or superior to it.
> *What about the will of the voters who have been disenfranchised by a handful of key states*
> that have changed their voting laws to allow for a huge increase in mail in ballots that are illegally
> processed (as in Georgia in their "pipe bursting" incident)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a bad argument to attempt.  A monority of voters elected this president in 2016.  Were voters in the more populous states disenfranchised?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go back to school and take a government class--pay close attention to the segment addressing the Electoral College and the founding fathers.  You may become enlightened, but I'm not holding my breath.
Click to expand...

I dont need enlightenment from a dim bulb.  You entirely missed the point.


----------



## Concerned American

g5000 said:


> Trump is a loser.  A YUGE loser.  The biggest sore loser of all time.
> 
> Trump would not even be president the first time around if he hadn't gotten a big leg up by Putin.
> 
> And Trump knows this.  It eats at him.  It eats and eats at him.  He can't stand this truth.
> 
> Now, without that help again, he has lost bigly.  A record number of 81 million voters stood in line to bitch slap the fat fuck.
> 
> That is eating at him, too.  He is such a thin skinned fat baby he can't take it.  He's trying to steal this election.  Trump is a dead man walking.  Wailing and thrashing around, showing us his true five year old character one last time.
> 
> 81 million bitch slaps!  That's GOTTA hurt!


So according to you, you won.  Why are you so angry and profane?


----------



## g5000

Concerned American said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a loser.  A YUGE loser.  The biggest sore loser of all time.
> 
> Trump would not even be president the first time around if he hadn't gotten a big leg up by Putin.
> 
> And Trump knows this.  It eats at him.  It eats and eats at him.  He can't stand this truth.
> 
> Now, without that help again, he has lost bigly.  A record number of 81 million voters stood in line to bitch slap the fat fuck.
> 
> That is eating at him, too.  He is such a thin skinned fat baby he can't take it.  He's trying to steal this election.  Trump is a dead man walking.  Wailing and thrashing around, showing us his true five year old character one last time.
> 
> 81 million bitch slaps!  That's GOTTA hurt!
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you, you won.  Why are you so angry and profane?
Click to expand...

I didn't win.  I voted for Jo Jorgensen.  I'm a Never Trumper.  Even moreso since the election.

I'm no more profane than Trump has been.  Suck it.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Coyote said:


> That is a bad argument to attempt. A monority of voters elected this president in 2016. Were voters in the more populous states disenfranchised?


Every voter in every election whose candidate does not win is "disenfranchised" if that's how you wish to
look at things. The question is was an election fairly contested? Or not?

We know for absolutely certain the 2020 presidential election was as dirty and corrupt as can be.
And the aftermath has been corrupt too. Appeals to lower and state courts have been summarily rejected
out of hand.
The solution when lower courts refuse to honestly deal with things (ignoring Dominion and ballot fraud)  is to take it to the Supreme Court.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

g5000 said:


> Trump is a loser.  A YUGE loser.  The biggest sore loser of all time.
> 
> Trump would not even be president the first time around if he hadn't gotten a big leg up by Putin.
> 
> And Trump knows this.  It eats at him.  It eats and eats at him.  He can't stand this truth.
> 
> Now, without that help again, he has lost bigly.  A record number of 81 million voters stood in line to bitch slap the fat fuck.
> 
> That is eating at him, too.  He is such a thin skinned fat baby he can't take it.  He's trying to steal this election.  Trump is a dead man walking.  Wailing and thrashing around, showing us his true five year old character one last time.
> 
> 81 million bitch slaps!  That's GOTTA hurt!


Craziest of the crazies.


----------



## OKTexas

mascale said:


> The Texas matter has no litigated findings on which to rely.
> 
> "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
> (For a real sniff of foreign intervention: See Deut 23: 19-20, about the gouging and screwing that Moses likely learned as kid--from Acts 7 a household art and skill of Pharaoh!)




Actually there is, Bush v. Gore is one precedent that said votes within a State can not be treated differently. GA treated mail in ballots differently than in person voting. Some counties in PA allowed voters to fix their defective ballots, while others didn't. That's just two of the due process arguments being made by TX.

.


----------



## g5000

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> We know for absolutely certain the 2020 presidential election was as dirty and corrupt as can be.


Nope.  Not even close.  Only in your little pinhead.


----------



## Concerned American

Coyote said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Just the will of the voters.
> 
> 
> 
> The will of the voters is not immune to the law of the land or superior to it.
> *What about the will of the voters who have been disenfranchised by a handful of key states*
> that have changed their voting laws to allow for a huge increase in mail in ballots that are illegally
> processed (as in Georgia in their "pipe bursting" incident)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a bad argument to attempt.  A monority of voters elected this president in 2016.  Were voters in the more populous states disenfranchised?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go back to school and take a government class--pay close attention to the segment addressing the Electoral College and the founding fathers.  You may become enlightened, but I'm not holding my breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont need enlightenment from a dim bulb.  You entirely missed the point.
Click to expand...

Maybe you didn't frame your question correctly.  I just directed you to where you could find the answer to your question.  You still haven't gotten over the loss of 2016.  If your bulb is dim, maybe you should invest in a rheostat and turn it up.


----------



## g5000

It wasn't enough for Trump to be bitch slapped by 81 million voters.  He had to go to court to get bitch slapped over and over and over by some judges, many of whom are Republicans.

The man is a masochist.

This shit is HILARIOUS!


----------



## LordBrownTrout

LoneLaugher said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have said here is untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The laws were followed in each state.
Click to expand...


They didn't go through the state legislatures.


----------



## Toro

iceberg said:


> then it should be ok with you as this is all you do.
> 
> regurgitate shit with every post to keep the WAH I HATE TRUMP WAH theme going.



^^^^^^


----------



## Concerned American

g5000 said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a loser.  A YUGE loser.  The biggest sore loser of all time.
> 
> Trump would not even be president the first time around if he hadn't gotten a big leg up by Putin.
> 
> And Trump knows this.  It eats at him.  It eats and eats at him.  He can't stand this truth.
> 
> Now, without that help again, he has lost bigly.  A record number of 81 million voters stood in line to bitch slap the fat fuck.
> 
> That is eating at him, too.  He is such a thin skinned fat baby he can't take it.  He's trying to steal this election.  Trump is a dead man walking.  Wailing and thrashing around, showing us his true five year old character one last time.
> 
> 81 million bitch slaps!  That's GOTTA hurt!
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you, you won.  Why are you so angry and profane?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't win.  I voted for Jo Jorgensen.  I'm a Never Trumper.  Even moreso since the election.
> 
> I'm no more profane than Trump has been.  Suck it.
Click to expand...

Am I correct in assuming you are angry because Jo Jorgenson didn't win?  My my my, what did you expect.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

g5000 said:


> Nope. Not even close. Only in your little pinhead.


Every word you post confirms my comment.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> Did the states bypass their own constitution and laws to change voting laws?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. Do you have any examples from the lawsuit that you think are relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the argument seems to be that the state constitution has rules for "absentee ballots", and they sought to create a new class of balloting not defined in the constitution
> 
> So the state legislature created a new type of ballot, called a "mail-in" ballot, under rules the state legislature enacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They created it after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking moron, Pennsylvania used mail-in ballots in their primary election in accordance with the new law. Republicans had their opportunity then to challenge the constitutionality of that law if it were really a problem for them. They don't get to sit on that position and wait to see if they win or lose an election, and then attempt to disenfranchise 2.6 million voters because they lost the election over a law that was constitutional when the election was held and the voters followed the law.
Click to expand...

So if you don't contest the constitutionality of some law by some arbitrary deadline that Dims have defined, then you can never contest it?  What about Plessy vs. Fergusen?  How long after the segregation laws were passed was that law contested?

You're a fucking idiot.

Dim fraud has disenfranchised 74 million voters, douchebag.


----------



## g5000

Way back in 2016, I used to illustrate the idiocy of Trump bleevers by posting pictures of the pied piper leading the children to the cave.

Man oh man, is that just as apt today as it was then!


----------



## bripat9643

Concerned American said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a loser.  A YUGE loser.  The biggest sore loser of all time.
> 
> Trump would not even be president the first time around if he hadn't gotten a big leg up by Putin.
> 
> And Trump knows this.  It eats at him.  It eats and eats at him.  He can't stand this truth.
> 
> Now, without that help again, he has lost bigly.  A record number of 81 million voters stood in line to bitch slap the fat fuck.
> 
> That is eating at him, too.  He is such a thin skinned fat baby he can't take it.  He's trying to steal this election.  Trump is a dead man walking.  Wailing and thrashing around, showing us his true five year old character one last time.
> 
> 81 million bitch slaps!  That's GOTTA hurt!
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you, you won.  Why are you so angry and profane?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't win.  I voted for Jo Jorgensen.  I'm a Never Trumper.  Even moreso since the election.
> 
> I'm no more profane than Trump has been.  Suck it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am I correct in assuming you are angry because Jo Jorgenson didn't win?  My my my, what did you expect.
Click to expand...

No one believes g5000 is a Republican.  He's been saying that for years, and he has never had a positive thing to say about any Republican.


----------



## bripat9643

g5000 said:


> Way back in 2016, I used to illustrate the idiocy of Trump bleevers by posting pictures of the pied piper leading the children to the cave.
> 
> Man oh man, is that just as apt today as it was then!


You have never been a Republican.  Who are you trying to fool?


----------



## g5000

bripat9643 said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a loser.  A YUGE loser.  The biggest sore loser of all time.
> 
> Trump would not even be president the first time around if he hadn't gotten a big leg up by Putin.
> 
> And Trump knows this.  It eats at him.  It eats and eats at him.  He can't stand this truth.
> 
> Now, without that help again, he has lost bigly.  A record number of 81 million voters stood in line to bitch slap the fat fuck.
> 
> That is eating at him, too.  He is such a thin skinned fat baby he can't take it.  He's trying to steal this election.  Trump is a dead man walking.  Wailing and thrashing around, showing us his true five year old character one last time.
> 
> 81 million bitch slaps!  That's GOTTA hurt!
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you, you won.  Why are you so angry and profane?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't win.  I voted for Jo Jorgensen.  I'm a Never Trumper.  Even moreso since the election.
> 
> I'm no more profane than Trump has been.  Suck it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am I correct in assuming you are angry because Jo Jorgenson didn't win?  My my my, what did you expect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one believes g5000 is a Republican.  He's been saying that for years, and he has never had a positive thing to say about any Republican.
Click to expand...

I have nothing positive to say about the spineless weasel Republicans who suck Trump's tiny mushroom dick.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Skylar said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> 
> 
> Gee..you are so "sharp" I'm surprised you can't figure this out...*not really.*
> 
> Texas won't be ruling on the election violations of other states. The Supreme Court will.
> If five states are allowed to pervert election law then the entire body of laws that rule and govern our
> national elections are nuked and Texas has a right to protect the laws that govern them as well as every other state in the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who determines if election laws of a given state were correctly implemented? The respective state courts.
> 
> Texas has no say in any of it.
Click to expand...

In the end SCOTUS does.  See Bush V Gore.  The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gore, SCOTUS overturned the lower court ruling.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

bripat9643 said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a loser.  A YUGE loser.  The biggest sore loser of all time.
> 
> Trump would not even be president the first time around if he hadn't gotten a big leg up by Putin.
> 
> And Trump knows this.  It eats at him.  It eats and eats at him.  He can't stand this truth.
> 
> Now, without that help again, he has lost bigly.  A record number of 81 million voters stood in line to bitch slap the fat fuck.
> 
> That is eating at him, too.  He is such a thin skinned fat baby he can't take it.  He's trying to steal this election.  Trump is a dead man walking.  Wailing and thrashing around, showing us his true five year old character one last time.
> 
> 81 million bitch slaps!  That's GOTTA hurt!
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you, you won.  Why are you so angry and profane?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't win.  I voted for Jo Jorgensen.  I'm a Never Trumper.  Even moreso since the election.
> 
> I'm no more profane than Trump has been.  Suck it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am I correct in assuming you are angry because Jo Jorgenson didn't win?  My my my, what did you expect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one believes g5000 is a Republican.  He's been saying that for years, and he has never had a positive thing to say about any Republican.
Click to expand...

He's the sort of "republican" who likes to get online and claim he is republican.
He's like the sort of man who puts on makeup, a wig and a dress and tucks his balls and penis
up as he hangs out in bars and street corners all night pretending to be a lady. 

*That's* the sort of republican he is.


----------



## iceberg

/


Coyote said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> and i would think on the surface these are valid counter arguments to the claim.
> 
> as for whether or not rules were applied equally, unfortunately that just depends on which website you read.
> 
> my main point is, i prefer going through the courts to settle disputes and sorting out the details. if trump loses, he loses. however i am not a lawyer and i don't think many in here are. we tend to mix and match as desired our feelings of a desired outcome with the legal process of getting there.
> 
> right or wrong, this is a valid way to address your concerns of our system. given other methods i've seen taking place, i far prefer the court method and am fine with allowing time w/o demonizing those pursuing this option we all have available to us.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with most of that, particularly with the courts, with a few caveates.
> 
> If the goal is simply to run out the clock or create a situation where legislatures select electors, then I am not ok with it.  Given what judges have said, and how Guiliani had to back down from claiming fraud, it is beginning to look like it is.
> 
> Also, a very toxic by product of the situation is that Biden and his transition team has not been getting all the access and briefings they should have, regardless of ongoing legal challenges. For comparison, in Gore/Bush, BOTH men received the same briefings until it was resolved.  This has very real natuonal security concerns and domestic policy concerns, such as handling the Pandemic.
Click to expand...

i am not ok with abuse of the system on either side. we've put ourselves in a revenge "catch up" mode where each side feels they got some "freebies" coming. only they never are settled, just keep the animosity growing.

i would also agree that biden is entitled to what other incoming presidents have gotten in the past. nothing more, nothing less. until you can prove your case, stop being a roadblock.

but that blocking has become simply the way business is done in DC anymore. toxic? sure. one sided? hardly.


----------



## g5000

bripat9643 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way back in 2016, I used to illustrate the idiocy of Trump bleevers by posting pictures of the pied piper leading the children to the cave.
> 
> Man oh man, is that just as apt today as it was then!
> 
> 
> 
> You have never been a Republican.  Who are you trying to fool?
Click to expand...

Gee, a tard is accusing me of not being a Republican.  My feewings are huht.


----------



## g5000

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a loser.  A YUGE loser.  The biggest sore loser of all time.
> 
> Trump would not even be president the first time around if he hadn't gotten a big leg up by Putin.
> 
> And Trump knows this.  It eats at him.  It eats and eats at him.  He can't stand this truth.
> 
> Now, without that help again, he has lost bigly.  A record number of 81 million voters stood in line to bitch slap the fat fuck.
> 
> That is eating at him, too.  He is such a thin skinned fat baby he can't take it.  He's trying to steal this election.  Trump is a dead man walking.  Wailing and thrashing around, showing us his true five year old character one last time.
> 
> 81 million bitch slaps!  That's GOTTA hurt!
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you, you won.  Why are you so angry and profane?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't win.  I voted for Jo Jorgensen.  I'm a Never Trumper.  Even moreso since the election.
> 
> I'm no more profane than Trump has been.  Suck it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am I correct in assuming you are angry because Jo Jorgenson didn't win?  My my my, what did you expect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one believes g5000 is a Republican.  He's been saying that for years, and he has never had a positive thing to say about any Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's the sort of "republican" who likes to get online and claim he is republican.
> He's like the sort of man who puts on makeup, a wig and a dress and tucks his balls and penis
> up as he hangs out in bars and street corners all night pretending to be a lady.
> 
> *That's* the sort of republican he is.
Click to expand...

I see I'm getting to the tards.

Funny how none of them will take my bet.

Spineless tards.  The whole lot of them.   They know Trump is a loser.


----------



## bripat9643

g5000 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a loser.  A YUGE loser.  The biggest sore loser of all time.
> 
> Trump would not even be president the first time around if he hadn't gotten a big leg up by Putin.
> 
> And Trump knows this.  It eats at him.  It eats and eats at him.  He can't stand this truth.
> 
> Now, without that help again, he has lost bigly.  A record number of 81 million voters stood in line to bitch slap the fat fuck.
> 
> That is eating at him, too.  He is such a thin skinned fat baby he can't take it.  He's trying to steal this election.  Trump is a dead man walking.  Wailing and thrashing around, showing us his true five year old character one last time.
> 
> 81 million bitch slaps!  That's GOTTA hurt!
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you, you won.  Why are you so angry and profane?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't win.  I voted for Jo Jorgensen.  I'm a Never Trumper.  Even moreso since the election.
> 
> I'm no more profane than Trump has been.  Suck it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am I correct in assuming you are angry because Jo Jorgenson didn't win?  My my my, what did you expect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one believes g5000 is a Republican.  He's been saying that for years, and he has never had a positive thing to say about any Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have nothing positive to say about the spineless weasel Republicans who suck Trump's tiny mushroom dick.
Click to expand...

Spineless weasel Republicans are the only kind that you have anything positive to say about.


----------



## colfax_m

bripat9643 said:


> So if you don't contest the constitutionality of some law by some arbitrary deadline that Dims have defined, then you can never contest it?


So just wait for everyone to vote and then file the lawsuit to take away those votes?

That's pretty screwed up.


----------



## bripat9643

g5000 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way back in 2016, I used to illustrate the idiocy of Trump bleevers by posting pictures of the pied piper leading the children to the cave.
> 
> Man oh man, is that just as apt today as it was then!
> 
> 
> 
> You have never been a Republican.  Who are you trying to fool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, a tard is accusing me of not being a Republican.  My feewings are huht.
Click to expand...

We know you have gotten used to it.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

You'll notice most of the trolls hanging out in threads like this have simply gone away.
I think that says it all.


----------



## bripat9643

colfax_m said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you don't contest the constitutionality of some law by some arbitrary deadline that Dims have defined, then you can never contest it?
> 
> 
> 
> So just wait for everyone to vote and then file the lawsuit to take away those votes?
> 
> That's pretty screwed up.
Click to expand...

Fraud is screwed up, asshole.


----------



## g5000

bripat9643 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way back in 2016, I used to illustrate the idiocy of Trump bleevers by posting pictures of the pied piper leading the children to the cave.
> 
> Man oh man, is that just as apt today as it was then!
> 
> 
> 
> You have never been a Republican.  Who are you trying to fool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, a tard is accusing me of not being a Republican.  My feewings are huht.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know you have gotten used to it.
Click to expand...

I've gotten used to you tards.  Yes.  You are entirely predictable. When you are cornered and can't win an argument, accuse the other person of being something they are not.  Weave a nice big straw man.

Pathetic.


----------



## Rogue AI

g5000 said:


> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably?  Seems you've already decided that "liberal shills" acted improperly or illegally.  Odd isn't it that nearly three dozen appeals by the Trump Supporters have been rejected by the Federal Court System.  It also seems that most of the judges have been appointed by Republican Presidents.
> 
> What is not probable are the facts that the GOP is closely acting with a seditious intent, and also close to violation US Code for inciting a riot:
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2102 -  Definitions
> 
> An not only Federal Judges and justices, but state justices and judges + AG Barr have found no fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High court rejects GOP bid to halt Biden's Pennsylvania win
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republicans' last-gasp bid to reverse Pennsylvania's certification of President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the electoral battleground.  The court without comment refused to call into question the certification process in Pennsylvania.  Democratic Gov. Tom...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did act illegally.  You folks are in for some disappointment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sick of you deluded fools.  Let's put some real money where your mouth breathing idiocy is.  Let's make a $500 bet that Trump will not be sworn in on January 20.
Click to expand...

Or you could just not be a whiny bitch and avoid topics you can't handle. Give your money to charity. Due to liberal fearmongering and autocratic decrees plenty of people can use help these days.


----------



## colfax_m

bripat9643 said:


> Fraud is screwed up, asshole.


Agreed. But you're talking about whether a law is constitutional, this has nothing to do with fraud.

Focus, kiddo. One topic at a time.


----------



## g5000

Rogue AI said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably?  Seems you've already decided that "liberal shills" acted improperly or illegally.  Odd isn't it that nearly three dozen appeals by the Trump Supporters have been rejected by the Federal Court System.  It also seems that most of the judges have been appointed by Republican Presidents.
> 
> What is not probable are the facts that the GOP is closely acting with a seditious intent, and also close to violation US Code for inciting a riot:
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2102 -  Definitions
> 
> An not only Federal Judges and justices, but state justices and judges + AG Barr have found no fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High court rejects GOP bid to halt Biden's Pennsylvania win
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republicans' last-gasp bid to reverse Pennsylvania's certification of President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the electoral battleground.  The court without comment refused to call into question the certification process in Pennsylvania.  Democratic Gov. Tom...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did act illegally.  You folks are in for some disappointment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sick of you deluded fools.  Let's put some real money where your mouth breathing idiocy is.  Let's make a $500 bet that Trump will not be sworn in on January 20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or you could just not be a whiny bitch and avoid topics you can't handle. Give your money to charity. Due to liberal fearmongering and autocratic decrees plenty of people can use help these days.
Click to expand...

I can handle any topic.

Why is it that none of you cowards will take my bet?

Because you know Trump is a fat loser. Which makes anyone who drinks his piss a loser.

ETA: As for charity, I've founded two charities.  You?


----------



## Concerned American

g5000 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a loser.  A YUGE loser.  The biggest sore loser of all time.
> 
> Trump would not even be president the first time around if he hadn't gotten a big leg up by Putin.
> 
> And Trump knows this.  It eats at him.  It eats and eats at him.  He can't stand this truth.
> 
> Now, without that help again, he has lost bigly.  A record number of 81 million voters stood in line to bitch slap the fat fuck.
> 
> That is eating at him, too.  He is such a thin skinned fat baby he can't take it.  He's trying to steal this election.  Trump is a dead man walking.  Wailing and thrashing around, showing us his true five year old character one last time.
> 
> 81 million bitch slaps!  That's GOTTA hurt!
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you, you won.  Why are you so angry and profane?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't win.  I voted for Jo Jorgensen.  I'm a Never Trumper.  Even moreso since the election.
> 
> I'm no more profane than Trump has been.  Suck it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am I correct in assuming you are angry because Jo Jorgenson didn't win?  My my my, what did you expect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one believes g5000 is a Republican.  He's been saying that for years, and he has never had a positive thing to say about any Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's the sort of "republican" who likes to get online and claim he is republican.
> He's like the sort of man who puts on makeup, a wig and a dress and tucks his balls and penis
> up as he hangs out in bars and street corners all night pretending to be a lady.
> 
> *That's* the sort of republican he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see I'm getting to the tards.
> 
> Funny how none of them will take my bet.
> 
> Spineless tards.  The whole lot of them.   They know Trump is a loser.
Click to expand...

You seem to have an unnatural knowledge with Pres. Trump's package.  How did you become so well acquainted?


----------



## g5000

Concerned American said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a loser.  A YUGE loser.  The biggest sore loser of all time.
> 
> Trump would not even be president the first time around if he hadn't gotten a big leg up by Putin.
> 
> And Trump knows this.  It eats at him.  It eats and eats at him.  He can't stand this truth.
> 
> Now, without that help again, he has lost bigly.  A record number of 81 million voters stood in line to bitch slap the fat fuck.
> 
> That is eating at him, too.  He is such a thin skinned fat baby he can't take it.  He's trying to steal this election.  Trump is a dead man walking.  Wailing and thrashing around, showing us his true five year old character one last time.
> 
> 81 million bitch slaps!  That's GOTTA hurt!
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you, you won.  Why are you so angry and profane?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't win.  I voted for Jo Jorgensen.  I'm a Never Trumper.  Even moreso since the election.
> 
> I'm no more profane than Trump has been.  Suck it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am I correct in assuming you are angry because Jo Jorgenson didn't win?  My my my, what did you expect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one believes g5000 is a Republican.  He's been saying that for years, and he has never had a positive thing to say about any Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's the sort of "republican" who likes to get online and claim he is republican.
> He's like the sort of man who puts on makeup, a wig and a dress and tucks his balls and penis
> up as he hangs out in bars and street corners all night pretending to be a lady.
> 
> *That's* the sort of republican he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see I'm getting to the tards.
> 
> Funny how none of them will take my bet.
> 
> Spineless tards.  The whole lot of them.   They know Trump is a loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to have an unnatural knowledge with Pres. Trump's package.  How did you become so well acquainted?
Click to expand...

Tiny hands, tiny package.  And his porn mistress gave a vivid description.

If you stopped sucking on it and looked at it, you'd see.


----------



## Care4all

Pete7469 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because every election has some individual fraud...NOT conspired fraud.  My statement fits perfectly, with reality.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 426995
> 
> OK... Why would you even be comfortable with "some individual fraud"? You do realize that if it happens thousands of times in certain areas it can change the results and undermine "the will of the people" that you claim to care about.
> 
> I ignore 95% of the bed wetters on this forum, and of the 5% I even pay attention to, you represent one of the few who seem to at least have some cognitive reasoning capacity. I understand that you hate Trump, even though if he ran as a democrok and picked Oprah as his VP you would have gone down to the border and demanded a job building the wall, you loathe the man because he isn't running as a democrok, and he beat the sociopath hag in 2016.
> 
> Be honest with me here hon, because to be honest with you, I'm not worried about the biden admin. He works for the billionaires who maintain the bullshit fiat currency and he isn't going to do a damn thing different than the Bush regime did other than allowing a bit more liberal lunacy to become policy than the Bushes did.
Click to expand...

Pete,
The little or some individual fraud is NEVER OK!  They should be prosecuted!

That individual fraud takes place on both sides of the aisle, it is bipartisan.

Disenfranchising MILLIONS of voters by taking their legitimate votes away from them because a handful of individuals cheated is simply unfair, unjust., and likely unconstitutional imho.


----------



## bendog

g5000 said:


> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably?  Seems you've already decided that "liberal shills" acted improperly or illegally.  Odd isn't it that nearly three dozen appeals by the Trump Supporters have been rejected by the Federal Court System.  It also seems that most of the judges have been appointed by Republican Presidents.
> 
> What is not probable are the facts that the GOP is closely acting with a seditious intent, and also close to violation US Code for inciting a riot:
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2102 -  Definitions
> 
> An not only Federal Judges and justices, but state justices and judges + AG Barr have found no fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High court rejects GOP bid to halt Biden's Pennsylvania win
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republicans' last-gasp bid to reverse Pennsylvania's certification of President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the electoral battleground.  The court without comment refused to call into question the certification process in Pennsylvania.  Democratic Gov. Tom...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did act illegally.  You folks are in for some disappointment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sick of you deluded fools.  Let's put some real money where your mouth breathing idiocy is.  Let's make a $500 bet that Trump will not be sworn in on January 20.
Click to expand...

They are just masturbating each other's sense of entitled grievance.  

Mueller found no collusion.  Trump's party controlled ALL arms of govt from 16-18.  Trump was impeached for what he did AFTER the election.  The scotus thus far has been pretty consistent in following the const that lets each state govern its own elections.  

Since the progressives threw away the dem chance for taking the senate and increasing their house maj, it's unlikely we'll see the dems enact a federal law mandating things like open polling places for federal elections, and a means to use mail in ballots.  I wonder what the scotus would have done with that.

I do expect some state legislatures to pass bills empowering them to appoint electors regardless of certified vote results.  I never even considered people would attempt that.


----------



## bendog

Rogue AI said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably?  Seems you've already decided that "liberal shills" acted improperly or illegally.  Odd isn't it that nearly three dozen appeals by the Trump Supporters have been rejected by the Federal Court System.  It also seems that most of the judges have been appointed by Republican Presidents.
> 
> What is not probable are the facts that the GOP is closely acting with a seditious intent, and also close to violation US Code for inciting a riot:
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2102 -  Definitions
> 
> An not only Federal Judges and justices, but state justices and judges + AG Barr have found no fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High court rejects GOP bid to halt Biden's Pennsylvania win
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republicans' last-gasp bid to reverse Pennsylvania's certification of President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the electoral battleground.  The court without comment refused to call into question the certification process in Pennsylvania.  Democratic Gov. Tom...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did act illegally.  You folks are in for some disappointment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sick of you deluded fools.  Let's put some real money where your mouth breathing idiocy is.  Let's make a $500 bet that Trump will not be sworn in on January 20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or you could just not be a whiny bitch and avoid topics you can't handle. Give your money to charity. Due to liberal fearmongering and autocratic decrees plenty of people can use help these days.
Click to expand...

you are the whiney bitch unable to accept an election.  Even Hillary's supporters had the balls that never dropped for you


----------



## Concerned American

g5000 said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a loser.  A YUGE loser.  The biggest sore loser of all time.
> 
> Trump would not even be president the first time around if he hadn't gotten a big leg up by Putin.
> 
> And Trump knows this.  It eats at him.  It eats and eats at him.  He can't stand this truth.
> 
> Now, without that help again, he has lost bigly.  A record number of 81 million voters stood in line to bitch slap the fat fuck.
> 
> That is eating at him, too.  He is such a thin skinned fat baby he can't take it.  He's trying to steal this election.  Trump is a dead man walking.  Wailing and thrashing around, showing us his true five year old character one last time.
> 
> 81 million bitch slaps!  That's GOTTA hurt!
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you, you won.  Why are you so angry and profane?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't win.  I voted for Jo Jorgensen.  I'm a Never Trumper.  Even moreso since the election.
> 
> I'm no more profane than Trump has been.  Suck it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am I correct in assuming you are angry because Jo Jorgenson didn't win?  My my my, what did you expect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one believes g5000 is a Republican.  He's been saying that for years, and he has never had a positive thing to say about any Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's the sort of "republican" who likes to get online and claim he is republican.
> He's like the sort of man who puts on makeup, a wig and a dress and tucks his balls and penis
> up as he hangs out in bars and street corners all night pretending to be a lady.
> 
> *That's* the sort of republican he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see I'm getting to the tards.
> 
> Funny how none of them will take my bet.
> 
> Spineless tards.  The whole lot of them.   They know Trump is a loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to have an unnatural knowledge with Pres. Trump's package.  How did you become so well acquainted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tiny hands, tiny package.  And his porn mistress gave a vivid description.
> 
> If you stopped sucking on it and looked at it, you'd see.
Click to expand...

Sorry to disappoint you, but I like women.


----------



## g5000

81 million bitch slaps.

That's GOTTA hurt!


----------



## BlindBoo

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> You'll notice most of the trolls hanging out in threads like this have simply gone away.
> I think that says it all.



It's mostly a pissing contest right now.  Not much action till tomorrow.


----------



## g5000

Trump lost.  Deal with it.

He lost in the voting booth, and he lost in court.

He's done.  Outta here.  Over.  Toast.  Stick a fork in.  Finished.  Kaput.  Through.  Door hitting his ass.  Gone.  Bye-bye.

You people need to come back to reality before you are permanently mentally ill.  I am not kidding.


----------



## Concerned American

g5000 said:


> Trump lost.  Deal with it.
> 
> He lost in the voting booth, and he lost in court.
> 
> He's done.  Outta here.  Over.  Toast.  Stick a fork in.  Finished.  Kaput.  Through.  Door hitting his ass.  Gone.  Bye-bye.
> 
> You people need to come back to reality before you are permanently mentally ill.  I am not kidding.


Sounds like you are trying to convince yourself or you just like to type.


----------



## Faun

g5000 said:


> Trump lost.  Deal with it.
> 
> He lost in the voting booth, and he lost in court.
> 
> He's done.  Outta here.  Over.  Toast.  Stick a fork in.  Finished.  Kaput.  Through.  Door hitting his ass.  Gone.  Bye-bye.
> 
> You people need to come back to reality before you are permanently mentally ill.  I am not kidding.


Too late.


----------



## bendog

g5000 said:


> 81 million bitch slaps.
> 
> That's GOTTA hurt!


It's just a fucking election.  They happen every 2 and 4 years.  Or did until Trump.  The consequences of attempting to end popular votes would be pretty catastrophic.

I forgot who it was who wrote an essay or editorial about the consequences of the gop's reliance on anti-democratic institutions like the electoral college and the supreme court to retain power.  But the thesis was that the more it goes on, the more extreme the gop has to become to retain power.  

Assuming the gop had any interest in what just occurred in the election, the dem party demonstrated that by calling for more govt, latino males broke for the gop.


----------



## bripat9643

g5000 said:


> Way back in 2016, I used to illustrate the idiocy of Trump bleevers by posting pictures of the pied piper leading the children to the cave.
> 
> Man oh man, is that just as apt today as it was then!


Wow, what a brilliant idea!  No one ever thought of characterizing the supporters of a particular politician as brainwashed morons!


----------



## The Original Tree

Faun said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
> 
> So much for "state's rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The US Constitution protects ALL states, not just swing states.  When those swing states violated US constitutional provisions, they violated the rights of the people in every other state.  SMH  democrats think rights only apply to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wut?? What US constitutional provisions were violated?
Click to expand...

Equal Protection Under The Law


----------



## justinacolmena

SCOTUS is a  dead institution of legalistic academia.








						Bible Gateway passage: Luke 11:47-48 - King James Version
					

Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.




					www.biblegateway.com


----------



## JimBowie1958

Coyote said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> right or wrong, this is a valid way to address your concerns of our system. given other methods i've seen taking place, i far prefer the court method and am fine with allowing time w/o demonizing those pursuing this option we all have available to us.
> 
> 
> 
> Given what judges have said, and how Guiliani had to back down from claiming fraud, it is beginning to look like it is.
Click to expand...

Giuliani has not backed down from anything, girly girl.


----------



## justinacolmena

JimBowie1958 said:


> girly girl.


Just another Democrat asshole raping women and patronizing prostitutes all the way to the pimps and prosecutors of the Supreme Court.


----------



## BULLDOG

Texas claims the  changes in the way the defendant states conducted the election did not come from those states legislatures. Isn't that the same thing as Texas Governor Abbot extending early voting without the state legislature?


----------



## JimBowie1958

justinacolmena said:


> Just another Democrat asshole raping women and patronizing prostitutes all the way to the pimps and prosecutors of the Supreme Court.


From JFK to Inoye to Swallowell, the Dimocraps have always been OK with rape if one of their own did it, unless they just want to get rid of them.

In the latter case it is as if their own guy is a Republican, lol.


----------



## iceberg

JimBowie1958 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> right or wrong, this is a valid way to address your concerns of our system. given other methods i've seen taking place, i far prefer the court method and am fine with allowing time w/o demonizing those pursuing this option we all have available to us.
> 
> 
> 
> Given what judges have said, and how Guiliani had to back down from claiming fraud, it is beginning to look like it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Giuliani has not backed down from anything, girly girl.
Click to expand...

well maybe cheap hair dye.


----------



## iceberg

BULLDOG said:


> Texas claims the  changes in the way the defendant states conducted the election did not come from those states legislatures. Isn't that the same thing as Texas Governor Abbot extending early voting without the state legislature?


maybe.

file a case and take them to court.


----------



## iceberg

bripat9643 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way back in 2016, I used to illustrate the idiocy of Trump bleevers by posting pictures of the pied piper leading the children to the cave.
> 
> Man oh man, is that just as apt today as it was then!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what a brilliant idea!  No one ever thought of characterizing the supporters of a particular politician as brainwashed morons!
Click to expand...

next think you know, he'll be stealing my fart jokes.


----------



## Blaine Sweeter

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
Click to expand...



You guys are being made into such stooges.....I'm even embarrassed FOR you.

BTW, the Texas AG who is bringing this ludicrous lawsuit to SCOTUS is also being investigated by the FBI.








						FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
					

The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.




					www.texastribune.org
				




Legal experts everywhere are saying this lawsuit is "absurd" and "laughable".
"
_A filing at the high court like Paxton’s would usually be made by the solicitor general of Texas, Kyle Hawkins, the state’s top appellate lawyer, and not the state’s attorney general, but Hawkins did not sign on.

The reason for that is unclear, “but *it’s possible it’s because he didn’t want to put his name on a legal filing that’s little more than a press release*,” said Justin Levitt, a professor of election law at Loyola Law School in California.""""








						Analysis-Texas tries to overturn the U.S. election result. Can it succeed?
					

An extraordinary attempt by the state of Texas to have President Donald Trump's election loss upended by the U.S. Supreme Court is almost certain to fail, according to election law experts who called the lawsuit "absurd" and "laughable."




					www.reuters.com
				



_


----------



## JimBowie1958

iceberg said:


> well maybe cheap hair dye.


What the hell was he thinking? I am wondering if he used some cheap hair dye the hotel gave hiom and he  just sweated it off, or if he planned it to get more media coverage for his announcement?


----------



## iceberg

JimBowie1958 said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> well maybe cheap hair dye.
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell was he thinking? I am wondering if he used some cheap hair dye the hotel gave hiom and he  just sweated it off, or if he planned it to get more media coverage for his announcement?
Click to expand...

dunno man, but funny is funny. he deserves some shots on that one.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Cecilie1200 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they did. Your saying so does not make it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same can be said for your saying, "Yes, they DID follow the law, they DID they DID THEY DID!!"
> 
> The difference, of course, is that what Lord is saying can be backed up by the actual laws, and what you're saying is only backed up by your emotions.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Cecilie.  I don't even think they can comprehend it.  They're engulfed with emotions and feelings, no rationale, logic or substance.


----------



## JimBowie1958

LordBrownTrout said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same can be said for your saying, "Yes, they DID follow the law, they DID they DID THEY DID!!"
> The difference, of course, is that what Lord is saying can be backed up by the actual laws, and what you're saying is only backed up by your emotions.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Cecilie.  I don't even think they can comprehend it.  They're engulfed with emotions and feelings, no rationale, logic or substance.
Click to expand...

In other words, their normal level of insanity or dishonesty.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

JimBowie1958 said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same can be said for your saying, "Yes, they DID follow the law, they DID they DID THEY DID!!"
> The difference, of course, is that what Lord is saying can be backed up by the actual laws, and what you're saying is only backed up by your emotions.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Cecilie.  I don't even think they can comprehend it.  They're engulfed with emotions and feelings, no rationale, logic or substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, their normal level of insanity or dishonesty.
Click to expand...


Yep, that's it for them.


----------



## mascale

Bush V. Gore, if that is a precedent--was famously about the act of ballot counting.   The problems were after the fact of the election.  There are lawful different methods of voting in all jurisdictions.  If those have basis in restrictive, abridgement, or denial of voting:  That could be said to have basis in a local court challenge.  Bush V. Gore was nowhere near the Texas Intervention.  Even Tennessee did not sue Florida.  So secondly, that matter was appellate in nature.  The Texas interstate intervention is not appellate in nature.  Not clearly shown is how the rules of local jurisprudence were  improperly applied, even. 50 or more cases tossed-out are not evidence of an interstate need for Supreme Court intervention--based in one or more state's--therefore political requests.  There are no civil liberties problems in litigated evidence to remedy.  Texas has no omniscience in the local wards and precinct matters. So anything else likely requires the litigated evidence for some basis on which the Supreme Court can rely.  Differences in adjustments for local voting obstacles--Covid-19 an example:  Are not restrictive, abridgement or denial of voting rights:  Prima Facie.  

What else is there to post?

"Crow, James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(For a real sniff of foreign intervention: See Deut 23: 19-20, about the gouging and screwing that Moses likely learned as kid--from Acts 7 a household art and skill of Pharaoh!)


----------



## Cecilie1200

Johnlaw said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court, and further, the suit is nothing less than an attempt to repudiate the votes of millions. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other states that have followed the  corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
Click to expand...


"I didn't bother to read the articles about this lawsuit, because I'm just SURE this is what it says, and I was in a hurry to tell everyone how stupid the lawsuit was on the basis of what I have decided it's about."

In much the same manner, I didn't bother to read your post past the first half of your first sentence, because I am sure that it's erroneous garbage with no relation to the actual topic.


----------



## BULLDOG

LordBrownTrout said:


> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.



Texas extended early voting dates without going through the legislature. Should Texas' 38 electoral votes be excluded from the count too?


----------



## BULLDOG

iceberg said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas claims the  changes in the way the defendant states conducted the election did not come from those states legislatures. Isn't that the same thing as Texas Governor Abbot extending early voting without the state legislature?
> 
> 
> 
> maybe.
> 
> file a case and take them to court.
Click to expand...


No need. Texas filed the case already.  If Paxton wins, his own state will be subject to the ruling.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Rye Catcher said:


> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably?  Seems you've already decided that "liberal shills" acted improperly or illegally.  Odd isn't it that nearly three dozen appeals by the Trump Supporters have been rejected by the Federal Court System.  It also seems that most of the judges have been appointed by Republican Presidents.
> 
> What is not probable are the facts that the GOP is closely acting with a seditious intent, and also close to violation US Code for inciting a riot:
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2102 -  Definitions
> 
> An not only Federal Judges and justices, but state justices and judges + AG Barr have found no fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High court rejects GOP bid to halt Biden's Pennsylvania win
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republicans' last-gasp bid to reverse Pennsylvania's certification of President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the electoral battleground.  The court without comment refused to call into question the certification process in Pennsylvania.  Democratic Gov. Tom...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did act illegally.  You folks are in for some disappointment.  This is about state election officials and their illegal actions that removed all safeguards to fair and free elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they have been found to have NOT committed Fraud, what crime do you have evidence to prove your opinion?
> 
> We all know, even you, that Donald Trump is a pathological liar.  His word is not worth a confederate dollar.
> 
> Pathological liar:  Pathological Liar: How to Cope with Someone’s Compulsive Lies
Click to expand...

/——/ *“ His word is not worth a confederate dollar.”*
BTW, a confederate dollar is worth $275 while a US dollar is worth a dollar.


			https://www.etsy.com/listing/481270038/vintage-obsolete-currency-rare-civil-war?gpla=1&gao=1&&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=shopping_us_all&utm_custom1=_k_45a71acc4fec11bfc59c451d6769f8e1_k_&utm_content=bing_319339185_1304020917004184_81501327774781_pla-4585100928622219:pla-4585100928622219_m__481270038&utm_custom2=319339185&msclkid=45a71acc4fec11bfc59c451d6769f8e1


----------



## Rogue AI

bendog said:


> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably?  Seems you've already decided that "liberal shills" acted improperly or illegally.  Odd isn't it that nearly three dozen appeals by the Trump Supporters have been rejected by the Federal Court System.  It also seems that most of the judges have been appointed by Republican Presidents.
> 
> What is not probable are the facts that the GOP is closely acting with a seditious intent, and also close to violation US Code for inciting a riot:
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2102 -  Definitions
> 
> An not only Federal Judges and justices, but state justices and judges + AG Barr have found no fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High court rejects GOP bid to halt Biden's Pennsylvania win
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republicans' last-gasp bid to reverse Pennsylvania's certification of President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the electoral battleground.  The court without comment refused to call into question the certification process in Pennsylvania.  Democratic Gov. Tom...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did act illegally.  You folks are in for some disappointment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sick of you deluded fools.  Let's put some real money where your mouth breathing idiocy is.  Let's make a $500 bet that Trump will not be sworn in on January 20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or you could just not be a whiny bitch and avoid topics you can't handle. Give your money to charity. Due to liberal fearmongering and autocratic decrees plenty of people can use help these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are the whiney bitch unable to accept an election.  Even Hillary's supporters had the balls that never dropped for you
Click to expand...

Did you say the same in 2000?


----------



## Blaine Sweeter

JimBowie1958 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> right or wrong, this is a valid way to address your concerns of our system. given other methods i've seen taking place, i far prefer the court method and am fine with allowing time w/o demonizing those pursuing this option we all have available to us.
> 
> 
> 
> Given what judges have said, and how Guiliani had to back down from claiming fraud, it is beginning to look like it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Giuliani has not backed down from anything, girly girl.
Click to expand...


Yes, he did.  The judges are point-blank asking these lawyers including Rudy if they are claiming fraud.
ALL of them have to say no because if an officer of the court lies to a judge, he's disbarred.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

BULLDOG said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas extended early voting dates without going through the legislature. Should Texas' 38 electoral votes be excluded from the count too?
Click to expand...


Why should they.  There was no change in their ballots.  The swing states didn't go through their state legislatures.


----------



## Blaine Sweeter

BULLDOG said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas claims the  changes in the way the defendant states conducted the election did not come from those states legislatures. Isn't that the same thing as Texas Governor Abbot extending early voting without the state legislature?
> 
> 
> 
> maybe.
> 
> file a case and take them to court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need. Texas filed the case already.  If Paxton wins, his own state will be subject to the ruling.
Click to expand...


Texas/AG Paxton are going to get the same short sentenced ruling that Pennsylvania got.  DENIED


----------



## Coyote

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bad argument to attempt. A monority of voters elected this president in 2016. Were voters in the more populous states disenfranchised?
> 
> 
> 
> Every voter in every election whose candidate does not win is "disenfranchised" if that's how you wish to
> look at things. The question is was an election fairly contested? Or not?[/qu ote]
> 
> I am looking it that, you are.
> 
> The only people
> 
> We know for absolutely certain the 2020 presidential election was as dirty and corrupt as can be.
> And the aftermath has been corrupt too. Appeals to lower and state courts have been summarily rejected
> out of hand.
> The solution when lower courts refuse to honestly deal with things (ignoring Dominion and ballot fraud)  is to take it to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...




iceberg said:


> /
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> and i would think on the surface these are valid counter arguments to the claim.
> 
> as for whether or not rules were applied equally, unfortunately that just depends on which website you read.
> 
> my main point is, i prefer going through the courts to settle disputes and sorting out the details. if trump loses, he loses. however i am not a lawyer and i don't think many in here are. we tend to mix and match as desired our feelings of a desired outcome with the legal process of getting there.
> 
> right or wrong, this is a valid way to address your concerns of our system. given other methods i've seen taking place, i far prefer the court method and am fine with allowing time w/o demonizing those pursuing this option we all have available to us.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with most of that, particularly with the courts, with a few caveates.
> 
> If the goal is simply to run out the clock or create a situation where legislatures select electors, then I am not ok with it.  Given what judges have said, and how Guiliani had to back down from claiming fraud, it is beginning to look like it is.
> 
> Also, a very toxic by product of the situation is that Biden and his transition team has not been getting all the access and briefings they should have, regardless of ongoing legal challenges. For comparison, in Gore/Bush, BOTH men received the same briefings until it was resolved.  This has very real natuonal security concerns and domestic policy concerns, such as handling the Pandemic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not ok with abuse of the system on either side. we've put ourselves in a revenge "catch up" mode where each side feels they got some "freebies" coming. only they never are settled, just keep the animosity growing.
Click to expand...


Totally agree on catch up vendettas, any investigative activities law enforcement actions need to be carefully considered and I hope bipartisan.  Frankly it will be a big effort just to depoliticize the DoJ, and other institutions even down to the VOA and restore public trust. A flurry of nonsense partisan investigations would be damaging.



> i would also agree that biden is entitled to what other incoming presidents have gotten in the past. nothing more, nothing less. until you can prove your case, stop being a roadblock.
> 
> but that blocking has become simply the way business is done in DC anymore. toxic? sure. one sided? hardly.


Agree.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Lesh said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please we have just had several years of Dems accusing every one who doesn't share their agenda with every crime misdemeanor and/or perversion they can think of without the first shred of evidence. Best expect the shoe to be on the other foot if Biden should actually manage to sleeze his way into office and for impeachment proceedings to commence immediately. Besides who are you to claim the evidence is invalid before it is even all presented? If those States have accepted illegal votes or deliberately encouraged illegal voting in a Federal election they have committed a crime against the Nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. So because you feel wronged over something completely different that affects this election how?
> 
> That fails basic logic. Sorry your feewings were hewt snowflake  but like...tough shit. You don't get to overturn an election based on your feelings.
> 
> As far as evidence...it's been over a month and about 60 court cases...when were you planning on presenting this "evidence"?
Click to expand...

Nobody is trying to "overturn" an election. A great many people believe that corrupt officials manipulated the count to put who they wanted in office rather than the candidate that actually got the most votes. Why would anyone who wants a fair and honest election mind people checking to make sure that it was? All this resistance only convinces people you have something to hide. It would be a very bad idea to go on with as many Americans as is current thinking that what is being attempted is a coup rather than an election.


----------



## BULLDOG

LordBrownTrout said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas extended early voting dates without going through the legislature. Should Texas' 38 electoral votes be excluded from the count too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should they.  There was no change in their ballots.  The swing states didn't go through their state legislatures.
Click to expand...


There was a change in the way their elections were conducted without legislature involvement. That is the point of the Texas suit.


----------



## BULLDOG

Blaine Sweeter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas claims the  changes in the way the defendant states conducted the election did not come from those states legislatures. Isn't that the same thing as Texas Governor Abbot extending early voting without the state legislature?
> 
> 
> 
> maybe.
> 
> file a case and take them to court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need. Texas filed the case already.  If Paxton wins, his own state will be subject to the ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas/AG Paxton are going to get the same short sentenced ruling that Pennsylvania got.  DENIED
Click to expand...


You're probably right, but if Paxton were to win (highly doubtful) Texas would be subject to the same ruling that Paxton is asking for.


----------



## Care4all

Turtlesoup said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> this coming from someone who can't point out how these states followed their own constitutional laws.
> 
> check mate son. tired of this ball of yarn in front of the kitty game with you. you failed miserably to state a single fact around the case, just spout shit and keep diverting.
> 
> as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> You're putting the cart in front of the horse. We can worry about the merits of the case after we demonstrate that the case is able to be brought at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again you simply can't say that these, states followed their own laws.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The citizens that voted did...they followed the law....  and by super majority, they voted for Biden to be President.
> 
> They voted via the laws in front of them, which they were told was a legal way to vote, by  State Supreme court's rulings in the suits in the courts.
> 
> Disenfranchising these citizen of their constitutional right to vote,
> 
> just aint gonna happen...
> 
> their legislature choosing electors of their own and not electors representing who their citizens in good faith voted for, is STEALING the election from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dear---------biden doesn't have a following---------fake ballots and dead voters don't count.
Click to expand...

You'd have to prove there were any fake ballots, which you haven't.

You'd have to prove there were dead voters that voted which you haven't.

And youd have to show, that these illegal votes, would change the majority will of the legal voters who voted.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bad argument to attempt. A monority of voters elected this president in 2016. Were voters in the more populous states disenfranchised?
> 
> 
> 
> Every voter in every election whose candidate does not win is "disenfranchised" if that's how you wish to
> look at things. The question is was an election fairly contested? Or not?[/qu ote]
> 
> I am looking it that, you are.
> 
> The only people
> 
> We know for absolutely certain the 2020 presidential election was as dirty and corrupt as can be.
> And the aftermath has been corrupt too. Appeals to lower and state courts have been summarily rejected
> out of hand.
> The solution when lower courts refuse to honestly deal with things (ignoring Dominion and ballot fraud)  is to take it to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> /
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> and i would think on the surface these are valid counter arguments to the claim.
> 
> as for whether or not rules were applied equally, unfortunately that just depends on which website you read.
> 
> my main point is, i prefer going through the courts to settle disputes and sorting out the details. if trump loses, he loses. however i am not a lawyer and i don't think many in here are. we tend to mix and match as desired our feelings of a desired outcome with the legal process of getting there.
> 
> right or wrong, this is a valid way to address your concerns of our system. given other methods i've seen taking place, i far prefer the court method and am fine with allowing time w/o demonizing those pursuing this option we all have available to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with most of that, particularly with the courts, with a few caveates.
> 
> If the goal is simply to run out the clock or create a situation where legislatures select electors, then I am not ok with it.  Given what judges have said, and how Guiliani had to back down from claiming fraud, it is beginning to look like it is.
> 
> Also, a very toxic by product of the situation is that Biden and his transition team has not been getting all the access and briefings they should have, regardless of ongoing legal challenges. For comparison, in Gore/Bush, BOTH men received the same briefings until it was resolved.  This has very real natuonal security concerns and domestic policy concerns, such as handling the Pandemic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not ok with abuse of the system on either side. we've put ourselves in a revenge "catch up" mode where each side feels they got some "freebies" coming. only they never are settled, just keep the animosity growing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally agree on catch up vendettas, any investigative activities law enforcement actions need to be carefully considered and I hope bipartisan.  Frankly it will be a big effort just to depoliticize the DoJ, and other institutions even down to the VOA and restore public trust. A flurry of nonsense partisan investigations would be damaging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i would also agree that biden is entitled to what other incoming presidents have gotten in the past. nothing more, nothing less. until you can prove your case, stop being a roadblock.
> 
> but that blocking has become simply the way business is done in DC anymore. toxic? sure. one sided? hardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree.
Click to expand...

i wish we werein a mature enough state to make some fundamental changes to our government. we need them now more than ever. but we politicize anything we can to gain an advantage (all sides) so what hope would we have that we could gather an intelligent group of cross sections to see how we improve the baseline we all build out from? if changes need to be made to the system they need to be neutral and where both sides can use them as equally as possible.

we're a few lifetimes away from that, if we even make it there.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Johnlaw said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
Click to expand...


Please show us where this thread topic has a damned thing to do with Trump directly.

All you gotta do.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Johnlaw said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.
> 
> Now show me where these states followed their process.
> 
> You can't, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.
> 
> Show me one case where Trump won and the court ruled what the state legislatures did was illegal.
> 
> You can’t, can you?
Click to expand...


THIS thread is about the lawsuit the state of Texas brought.  It is not about any lawsuits brought by Trump and his campaign.

So show us where your demands have anything to do with the topic.  THEN stop making demands like you're fucking Torquemada at the Inquisition, and ask your questions politely.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Johnlaw said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.
> 
> Now show me where these states followed their process.
> 
> You can't, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.
> 
> Ahiw me one case where Trump won.
> 
> You can’t, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Texas lawsuit is trash. It will dismissed out of hand.
Click to expand...


Coming from a dipwad who's already proven that he knows nothing whatsoever about the Texas lawsuit, this means . . . exactly as much as every other post you make, which is nothing.


----------



## Concerned American

Cecilie1200 said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.
> 
> Now show me where these states followed their process.
> 
> You can't, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.
> 
> Show me one case where Trump won and the court ruled what the state legislatures did was illegal.
> 
> You can’t, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THIS thread is about the lawsuit the state of Texas brought.  It is not about any lawsuits brought by Trump and his campaign.
> 
> So show us where your demands have anything to do with the topic.  THEN stop making demands like you're fucking Torquemada at the Inquisition, and ask your questions politely.
Click to expand...

Ya just can't Torquemada anything.  LOL.  Apologies to Mel Brooks and A History of the World.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Cellblock2429 said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably?  Seems you've already decided that "liberal shills" acted improperly or illegally.  Odd isn't it that nearly three dozen appeals by the Trump Supporters have been rejected by the Federal Court System.  It also seems that most of the judges have been appointed by Republican Presidents.
> 
> What is not probable are the facts that the GOP is closely acting with a seditious intent, and also close to violation US Code for inciting a riot:
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2102 -  Definitions
> 
> An not only Federal Judges and justices, but state justices and judges + AG Barr have found no fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High court rejects GOP bid to halt Biden's Pennsylvania win
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republicans' last-gasp bid to reverse Pennsylvania's certification of President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the electoral battleground.  The court without comment refused to call into question the certification process in Pennsylvania.  Democratic Gov. Tom...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did act illegally.  You folks are in for some disappointment.  This is about state election officials and their illegal actions that removed all safeguards to fair and free elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they have been found to have NOT committed Fraud, what crime do you have evidence to prove your opinion?
> 
> We all know, even you, that Donald Trump is a pathological liar.  His word is not worth a confederate dollar.
> 
> Pathological liar:  Pathological Liar: How to Cope with Someone’s Compulsive Lies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ *“ His word is not worth a confederate dollar.”*
> BTW, a confederate dollar is worth $275 while a US dollar is worth a dollar.
> 
> 
> https://www.etsy.com/listing/481270038/vintage-obsolete-currency-rare-civil-war?gpla=1&gao=1&&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=shopping_us_all&utm_custom1=_k_45a71acc4fec11bfc59c451d6769f8e1_k_&utm_content=bing_319339185_1304020917004184_81501327774781_pla-4585100928622219:pla-4585100928622219_m__481270038&utm_custom2=319339185&msclkid=45a71acc4fec11bfc59c451d6769f8e1
Click to expand...


Mea culpa, I have a ticket to the 49ers Championship Game in 1957 which never occurred.  It's face value was $7.50.  But I digress, as a collectors item it is worth more today as is other such currency and coins.



			https://www.etsy.com/listing/816354532/tt-1863-rare-fr-150a-50-dollars-legal?gpla=1&gao=1&&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=shopping_us_a-art_and_collectibles-collectibles-coins&utm_custom1=_k_CjwKCAiAiML-BRAAEiwAuWVggnrUdNbsEGBHc2eUrK_bFSc-VHU7d21vK1hKu3HTQpOYe0u_pgH9LxoC0HoQAvD_BwE_k_&utm_content=go_1844702580_70388662475_346397640928_pla-353500745642_c__816354532_12768591&utm_custom2=1844702580&gclid=CjwKCAiAiML-BRAAEiwAuWVggnrUdNbsEGBHc2eUrK_bFSc-VHU7d21vK1hKu3HTQpOYe0u_pgH9LxoC0HoQAvD_BwE


----------



## Cecilie1200

RealDave said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not. There have been no illegal changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US constitution says State legislatures set the rules for Presidential elector selection, and thus the elections. State judges can't override that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marty thinks that a Republican legislature can pass a law that said democrats votes don 't get counted.
Click to expand...


RealDumb thinks that if he dodges the topic enough, it will just go away.


----------



## BULLDOG

Cecilie1200 said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.
> 
> Now show me where these states followed their process.
> 
> You can't, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.
> 
> Ahiw me one case where Trump won.
> 
> You can’t, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Texas lawsuit is trash. It will dismissed out of hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from a dipwad who's already proven that he knows nothing whatsoever about the Texas lawsuit, this means . . . exactly as much as every other post you make, which is nothing.
Click to expand...


If Texas wins the case, will all states who made voting rules changes without their legislature doing it have their EC votes voided, or just the ones listed in the case?


----------



## Concerned American

iceberg said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas claims the  changes in the way the defendant states conducted the election did not come from those states legislatures. Isn't that the same thing as Texas Governor Abbot extending early voting without the state legislature?
> 
> 
> 
> maybe.
> 
> file a case and take them to court.
Click to expand...

That's the democrat way.  Just look at the number of cases filed against Trump by democrat governors and AGs on the west coast over the last four years.


----------



## Concerned American

BULLDOG said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.
> 
> Now show me where these states followed their process.
> 
> You can't, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.
> 
> Ahiw me one case where Trump won.
> 
> You can’t, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Texas lawsuit is trash. It will dismissed out of hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from a dipwad who's already proven that he knows nothing whatsoever about the Texas lawsuit, this means . . . exactly as much as every other post you make, which is nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Texas wins the case, will all states who made voting rules changes without their legislature doing it have their EC votes voided, or just the ones listed in the case?
Click to expand...

I think this case would just cover the listed defendants, however any state that violated the constitution in this regard would be in jeopardy after the precedent was set.


----------



## ThoughtCrimes

OKTexas said:


> The case in the OP has nothing to do with other cases, of course you know that, but deflection seems to be all you have. STFU.


Well hi, Poser! I see your dumb ass is still Trolling me again over your stupid ploy I didn't fall for. You're the fucking dumbass who posted your DD 214 as a challenge to prove you heap big brave warrior &  so you could display like a fucking peacock, an award you received.  That is the epitome of a *poser* and just one of many reasons why I use that moniker to peg your dumb ass for so long. All along I refused to display my DD 214, and instead posted my VA Benefits letter as proof of MY SEA/Nam deployments as agreed. And your dumb ass dismissed that as non-proof because it wasn't a DD 214...fucking bullshitter! 

As far as the single item on topic, ALL of the cases have a common thread, notwithstanding your bullshit of trying to decouple them, one from another; Trump & Co. trying to put their collective thumbs on the scale. Tough shit Tex...you don't want to see it because you're just a fucking puppet. So piss off now Lil' Tex. You're the one making a fool of himself with your childish behavior in your 70's. TaTa *Poser*!


----------



## BULLDOG

Concerned American said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.
> 
> Now show me where these states followed their process.
> 
> You can't, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.
> 
> Ahiw me one case where Trump won.
> 
> You can’t, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Texas lawsuit is trash. It will dismissed out of hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from a dipwad who's already proven that he knows nothing whatsoever about the Texas lawsuit, this means . . . exactly as much as every other post you make, which is nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Texas wins the case, will all states who made voting rules changes without their legislature doing it have their EC votes voided, or just the ones listed in the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think this case would just cover the listed defendants, however any state that violated the constitution in this regard would be in jeopardy after the precedent was set.
Click to expand...

Texas extended early voting without any input from the legislature. There goes those 38 EC votes for Trump down the drain.  Changes were made the same way across the country.


----------



## Aldo Raine

DrLove said:


> Well of course - Texas has every right to change election laws in all 57 states because, you know ... TEXAS!
> Good lord, when will Republicans stop embarrassing themselves?



Come on the answer to that last question is,  NEVER!!!!

MAGA


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

colfax_m said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, the State of Texas has an interest in protecting its voters from such impact, especially one that violates the Electors Clause and very recent precedent surrounding its interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating. What impact did any of these states have on Texas's voters that it is seeking to protect them from?
> 
> You don't actually understand this argument, do you?
Click to expand...

You do nothing but talk in circles.

Go see the fucking HOLDING stating that it does impact Texas and its voters.  I fucking gave you the citation.

Quit making shit up that is contrary to precedent.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

colfax_m said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the EC is, in essence, States voting for the POTUS and VP, one State is affected by another's failure to follow the proper process, just like an individual voter is affected when another votes illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a bullshit analogy. You're arguing about how an elector is chosen, not whether the elector has a right to cast a vote at all. When someone votes illegally, they are casting a vote they should not be allowed to cast. No one is saying that the electors can't cast votes, you're just trying to tell them they can't vote for someone you don't like.
Click to expand...

In this situation, the analogy is good enough.

States can't fuck up the way they handle the EC because, as the SCOTUS has ALREADY DECIDED, that has an impact on the voters in other states.  THUS, Texas can show harm.  THUS, Texas has fucking standing.

That is the material point, which you are anxious to ignore.


----------



## OKTexas

ThoughtCrimes said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> The case in the OP has nothing to do with other cases, of course you know that, but deflection seems to be all you have. STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> Well hi, Poser! I see your dumb ass is still Trolling me again over your stupid ploy I didn't fall for. You're the fucking dumbass who posted your DD 214 as a challenge to prove you heap big brave warrior &  so you could display like a fucking peacock, an award you received.  That is the epitome of a *poser* and just one of many reasons why I use that moniker to peg your dumb ass for so long. All along I refused to display my DD 214, and instead posted my VA Benefits letter as proof of MY SEA/Nam deployments as agreed. And your dumb ass dismissed that as non-proof because it wasn't a DD 214...fucking bullshitter!
> 
> As far as the single item on topic, ALL of the cases have a common thread, notwithstanding your bullshit of trying to decouple them, one from another; Trump & Co. trying to put their collective thumbs on the scale. Tough shit Tex...you don't want to see it because you're just a fucking puppet. So piss off now Lil' Tex. You're the one making a fool of himself with your childish behavior in your 70's. TaTa *Poser*!
Click to expand...



Well punk, first of all I'm not in my 70s and there in nothing in the TX suit that alleges any fraud. It simply points out States not following their own State laws, violations of due process and violations of the Constitution.

If you didn't spend so much time lying and deflecting you might be able to keep up. LMAO

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Blaine Sweeter said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> right or wrong, this is a valid way to address your concerns of our system. given other methods i've seen taking place, i far prefer the court method and am fine with allowing time w/o demonizing those pursuing this option we all have available to us.
> 
> 
> 
> Given what judges have said, and how Guiliani had to back down from claiming fraud, it is beginning to look like it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Giuliani has not backed down from anything, girly girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he did.  The judges are point-blank asking these lawyers including Rudy if they are claiming fraud.
> ALL of them have to say no because if an officer of the court lies to a judge, he's disbarred.
Click to expand...

Show me where this has happened.  I tried to find it but nothing.  Got a link?


----------



## Cecilie1200

postman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can apply equal protection when your state has been given affirmative action.
> 
> You have a state which gets 1.2 EC votes for every million citizens, arguing equal protection with a state which gets 1.8 EC votes for every million citizens.
Click to expand...


Oh, spare us with the false equivalency bullshit.  "We don't have to follow the law, because we don't have the pure mob rule democracy that we want!!!"

The operative part of the phrase "equal protection under the law" is actually "UNDER THE LAW".  The law - in this case, the US Constitution - says that election laws are set by state legislatures.  Not by the governor, not by the state Supreme Court, not by the Secretary of State.  If a state's election was being governed by arbitrary decisions made by those other people, rather than by the laws passed by the state legislature, then that is a violation of the US Constitution.

And there's no amount of whining that "Well, the whole election is not fair, because it isn't done the way I think it should be!!!" that's going to change that fact, or be worth a taco fart in a wind tunnel to anyone here.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republican controlled legislature passed the bill.
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw in MI it was the people who voted for Mail in ballots in 2018. By referendum. A power delegated to them, by guess who......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, so what? The bottom line is states can't make changes to their voting rules leading up to
> an election without involving their legislatures.
Click to expand...


Actually, states can't make changes to their voting rules AT ALL without involving their legislatures.


----------



## Concerned American

BULLDOG said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.
> 
> Now show me where these states followed their process.
> 
> You can't, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.
> 
> Ahiw me one case where Trump won.
> 
> You can’t, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Texas lawsuit is trash. It will dismissed out of hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from a dipwad who's already proven that he knows nothing whatsoever about the Texas lawsuit, this means . . . exactly as much as every other post you make, which is nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Texas wins the case, will all states who made voting rules changes without their legislature doing it have their EC votes voided, or just the ones listed in the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think this case would just cover the listed defendants, however any state that violated the constitution in this regard would be in jeopardy after the precedent was set.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas extended early voting without any input from the legislature. There goes those 38 EC votes for Trump down the drain.  Changes were made the same way across the country.
Click to expand...

That's wonderful, so the election was put in jeopardy and the vote goes to the house where each state gets one vote and since there are more republican controlled states than democrat, Trump should be inaugurated Jan. 20.  Just keeps getting better.


----------



## Peace

9thIDdoc said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please we have just had several years of Dems accusing every one who doesn't share their agenda with every crime misdemeanor and/or perversion they can think of without the first shred of evidence. Best expect the shoe to be on the other foot if Biden should actually manage to sleeze his way into office and for impeachment proceedings to commence immediately. Besides who are you to claim the evidence is invalid before it is even all presented? If those States have accepted illegal votes or deliberately encouraged illegal voting in a Federal election they have committed a crime against the Nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. So because you feel wronged over something completely different that affects this election how?
> 
> That fails basic logic. Sorry your feewings were hewt snowflake  but like...tough shit. You don't get to overturn an election based on your feelings.
> 
> As far as evidence...it's been over a month and about 60 court cases...when were you planning on presenting this "evidence"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is trying to "overturn" an election. A great many people believe that corrupt officials manipulated the count to put who they wanted in office rather than the candidate that actually got the most votes. Why would anyone who wants a fair and honest election mind people checking to make sure that it was? All this resistance only convinces people you have something to hide. It would be a very bad idea to go on with as many Americans as is current thinking that what is being attempted is a coup rather than an election.
Click to expand...


How many times do you need to check?

How many recounts are needed?

The answer is as many as you need until Trump is selected no matter if the evidence does not support the claim Trump lost because of fraud!

Hell courts have rejected every case except one and that one was overturned...

So how many times must you be told Trump lost?


----------



## BULLDOG

Cecilie1200 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republican controlled legislature passed the bill.
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw in MI it was the people who voted for Mail in ballots in 2018. By referendum. A power delegated to them, by guess who......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, so what? The bottom line is states can't make changes to their voting rules leading up to
> an election without involving their legislatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, states can't make changes to their voting rules AT ALL without involving their legislatures.
Click to expand...


Texas governor, republican Greg Abbot, extended early voting dates with no support or input from the legislature.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Cecilie1200 said:


> Actually, states can't make changes to their voting rules AT ALL without involving their legislatures.


Not legally, anyway.


----------



## Ben Thomson

Now, thanks to the Orange Jesus every loser from now on is going to start screaming fraud and suing to get elections overturned. Thanks a lot for nothing Trump.


----------



## Cecilie1200

postman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't follow their "constitutional process," numskull.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their constitution process is controlled by the courts of their state.  Not by the courts of another state.
Click to expand...


I will never understand why leftists think, "If I sound like I'm just too stupid to understand, it will be a brilliant debate tactic!"

The Constitution primarily in question here is the US Constitution.  Maybe you've heard of it.  It states, very clearly, that state election law is set by the state legislature, not by any other state government entity.  To the extent that state government entities may have violated their own state Constitution in regards to election law, that would also be a violation of the US Constitution.

For the record, though, the state supreme court does not "control" the state constitution, either.  That's also controlled by the state legislatures, and the people they represent.


----------



## BULLDOG

Concerned American said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.
> 
> Now show me where these states followed their process.
> 
> You can't, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.
> 
> Ahiw me one case where Trump won.
> 
> You can’t, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Texas lawsuit is trash. It will dismissed out of hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from a dipwad who's already proven that he knows nothing whatsoever about the Texas lawsuit, this means . . . exactly as much as every other post you make, which is nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Texas wins the case, will all states who made voting rules changes without their legislature doing it have their EC votes voided, or just the ones listed in the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think this case would just cover the listed defendants, however any state that violated the constitution in this regard would be in jeopardy after the precedent was set.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas extended early voting without any input from the legislature. There goes those 38 EC votes for Trump down the drain.  Changes were made the same way across the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's wonderful, so the election was put in jeopardy and the vote goes to the house where each state gets one vote and since there are more republican controlled states than democrat, Trump should be inaugurated Jan. 20.  Just keeps getting better.
Click to expand...


You be sure to hold your breath until that happens.


----------



## Circe

Analysis-Texas tries to overturn the U.S. election result. Can it succeed? | Reuters

Texas asked the justices to immediately block the four states from using the voting results to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College, essentially erasing the will of millions of voters.

Biden has amassed 306 electoral votes - exceeding the necessary 270 - compared to Trump’s 232 in the state-by-state Electoral College that determines the election’s outcome. The four states contribute a combined 62 electoral votes to Biden’s total. Texas asked the justices to delay the Dec. 14 date for Electoral College votes to be cast, a date set by law in 1887.
*******************************************************************************************************

Very interesting to me. So if they subtract 62 electoral votes from Biden's 306, that leaves him 234 votes, not the 270 he has to have. Of course, then Trump would have 232 still, which is less, but then what, legally? Would the one who got the most win (still Biden)? Or would it be thrown into the House of Representatives because no one got 270? In which case Trump would win, presumably.

I thought they'd try for different states of electors for several states, which would throw the election into the House, as it did before, 1877. And they did try: that was the Georgia effort, which failed a couple days ago, when the governor of Georgia refused.

I suppose this all goes nowhere, except that it might well educate both parties not to appease when there are voting cheats. And there are, too often.  If this ended by finally getting voter IDs, that would be great. If it ends by states making a lot more sure to cut out voting fraud and illegals voting, that would be really great.


----------



## Cecilie1200

postman said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Electors Clause requires States to appoint their electors pursuant to state LEGISLATIVE action.  If a State fails to do so via its legislature, that is a violation of the EC.  Because the EC is, in essence, States voting for the POTUS and VP, one State is affected by another's failure to follow the proper process, just like an individual voter is affected when another votes illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  In the very first presidential election, states chose their own unique methods of choosing electors, including not choosing them at all.
> 
> If there was an equal protection violation, that certainly would have been one.
Click to expand...


Nope.  So long as it was the state legislature making the decision, it's not a violation of the US Constitution at all.

"Equal protection" doesn't mean everyone gets the same outcome; it means everyone plays by the same rules during the game.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

iceberg said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
Click to expand...

And, the complaint establishes through precedent in _Anderson v. Celebrezze_ and in _Mass. v. EPA_ that Texas has standing to bring the action against other states as original actions in the SCOTUS. 

So far, all these internet, night-shift lawyers have failed to rebut that very sound LEGAL argument supporting Texas having standing, which these night-shift internet lawyers originally asserted but have suddenly abandoned for some reason.


----------



## busybee01

JimBowie1958 said:


> Missouri is now in as well.
> 
> So that would now be Texas,  Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Missouri filing suit against the four Dumbass states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri joins 'fight' alongside Texas to challenge election before Supreme Court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com



The Dumbass states are the ones filing this idiotic suit that will be thrown out just like the rest of them.


----------



## iceberg

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, the complaint establishes through precedent in _Anderson v. Celebrezze_ and in _Mass. v. EPA_ that Texas has standing to bring the action against other states as original actions in the SCOTUS.
> 
> So far, all these internet, night-shift lawyers have failed to rebut that very sound LEGAL argument supporting Texas having standing, which these night-shift internet lawyers originally asserted but have suddenly abandoned for some reason.
Click to expand...

this is their right to follow through. let them do it.


----------



## iceberg

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, the State of Texas has an interest in protecting its voters from such impact, especially one that violates the Electors Clause and very recent precedent surrounding its interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating. What impact did any of these states have on Texas's voters that it is seeking to protect them from?
> 
> You don't actually understand this argument, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do nothing but talk in circles.
> 
> Go see the fucking HOLDING stating that it does impact Texas and its voters.  I fucking gave you the citation.
> 
> Quit making shit up that is contrary to precedent.
Click to expand...

ask him to answer a yes|no question.

like putting a quarter in a vibrating bed. he won't shut off for at least 2 minutes.


----------



## Circe

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> States can't fuck up the way they handle the EC because, as the SCOTUS has ALREADY DECIDED, that has an impact on the voters in other states.  THUS, Texas can show harm.  THUS, Texas has fucking standing.
> 
> That is the material point, which you are anxious to ignore.



You think Texas has standing? I just read an impassioned piece somewhere saying, no it doesn't, either!! I see what you mean, though. It all turns on standing, at least first. The USSC won't vote for certiorari, whether it will hear the case, if it doesn't think Texas has standing, but also for any other reasons it wants to use to deny hearing it. 

It would surprise me a whole lot if the Supreme Court hears this case. And if it does, that it votes in favor of Trump. And I say that as a Trump supporter. I just don't think they will. Surprise me ----


----------



## busybee01

martybegan said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is saying the States in question violated the rules. This led to the increased chance of fraud.
> 
> There is no hard evidence YET, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence you ignore.  You act like the people who did it wouldn't try to hide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the States have found no violation of their own rules.
> 
> Texas lacks standing to challenge the internal rules of another State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are supposed to come from the Legislatures as per the US Constitution, not the Executive or the Judicial.
Click to expand...


State courts have the right to interpret state laws. State legislatures cannot ignore state constitutions.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Circe said:


> Analysis-Texas tries to overturn the U.S. election result. Can it succeed? | Reuters
> 
> Texas asked the justices to immediately block the four states from using the voting results to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College, essentially erasing the will of millions of voters.
> 
> Biden has amassed 306 electoral votes - exceeding the necessary 270 - compared to Trump’s 232 in the state-by-state Electoral College that determines the election’s outcome. The four states contribute a combined 62 electoral votes to Biden’s total. Texas asked the justices to delay the Dec. 14 date for Electoral College votes to be cast, a date set by law in 1887.
> *******************************************************************************************************
> 
> Very interesting to me. So if they subtract 62 electoral votes from Biden's 306, that leaves him 234 votes, not the 270 he has to have. Of course, then Trump would have 232 still, which is less, but then what, legally? Would the one who got the most win (still Biden)? Or would it be thrown into the House of Representatives because no one got 270? In which case Trump would win, presumably.
> 
> I thought they'd try for different states of electors for several states, which would throw the election into the House, as it did before, 1877. And they did try: that was the Georgia effort, which failed a couple days ago, when the governor of Georgia refused.
> 
> I suppose this all goes nowhere, except that it might well educate both parties not to appease when there are voting cheats. And there are, too often.  If this ended by finally getting voter IDs, that would be great. If it ends by states making a lot more sure to cut out voting fraud and illegals voting, that would be really great.


Yep, that leaves it to the next step in the process, when neither candidate can get the requisite 270, which provides for a Contingent Election process governed by the 12 Amendment, which states:  

_The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. *But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.* And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[a]

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.__[_

And, in that case---1 vote per state---WHO WOULD WIN????

 

These sad twats don't see the end game...but even if that fails, I think there is a lot more to this than mere attempts to drive it to a one-vote-per-state outcome.  This is a SERIOUS threat to the Union.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

busybee01 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri is now in as well.
> 
> So that would now be Texas,  Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Missouri filing suit against the four Dumbass states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri joins 'fight' alongside Texas to challenge election before Supreme Court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dumbass states are the ones filing this idiotic suit that will be thrown out just like the rest of them.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has already ordered the cheating states to respond to the Texas' suit.
They have until tomorrow, just so you know. 

So has the suit been "thrown out"?  No effin way.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Circe said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> States can't fuck up the way they handle the EC because, as the SCOTUS has ALREADY DECIDED, that has an impact on the voters in other states.  THUS, Texas can show harm.  THUS, Texas has fucking standing.
> 
> That is the material point, which you are anxious to ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think Texas has standing? I just read an impassioned piece somewhere saying, no it doesn't, either!! I see what you mean, though. It all turns on standing, at least first. The USSC won't vote for certiorari, whether it will hear the case, if it doesn't think Texas has standing, but also for any other reasons it wants to use to deny hearing it.
> 
> It would surprise me a whole lot if the Supreme Court hears this case. And if it does, that it votes in favor of Trump. And I say that as a Trump supporter. I just don't think they will. Surprise me ----
Click to expand...

See, that's the problem with original jurisdiction.  There is no vote for cert.  The SCOTUS MUST hear the case when the suit is between 2 or more states.


----------



## busybee01

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what does this have to do with anything? the Texas lawsuit has been spelled out clearly, with references, sections of the states constitutions violated and how that impacted an outcomes against what their state (and now what, 9 others) voted fairly for.
> 
> did these states or did they not follow their own constitutional process to change how people voted in this election?
> 
> a YES | NO question doesn't contain this many excuses.
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it. Texas has no grounds to sue these states to force them to do anything. It's completely without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you read the pleadings?
> 
> Your response indicates that you haven't, but if you have, I want to hear what legal authority you are relying on to counter that argued by Texas.
> 
> *Complaint*
> 
> View attachment 426963
> View attachment 426964
> 
> What's your response?
Click to expand...


Here is the problem. In Massachusetts vs EPA, the plaintiffs were able to prove that pollution from other states did directly affect them. That is not the case here. Every state has the right to regulate their state elections. None of these states have standing.


----------



## colfax_m

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> States can't fuck up the way they handle the EC because, as the SCOTUS has ALREADY DECIDED, that has an impact on the voters in other states. THUS, Texas can show harm. THUS, Texas has fucking standing.


You keep saying that, but you can't explain what that actually means. 



Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Go see the fucking HOLDING stating that it does impact Texas and its voters. I fucking gave you the citation.


You can't explain what relevance that citation has on this case. 

The citation was about ballot access where a candidate sued a state for having too high of a burden to get on the ballot. It had nothing to do with one state suing another state because they didn't vote for the right person as Texas is doing.


----------



## colfax_m

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> The SCOTUS MUST hear the case when the suit is between 2 or more states.


Depends on what you mean by SCOTUS MUST hear it. SCOTUS is the only court which can take cases between states but it does not have to hear the case just because it's brought to them. SCOTUS may decline to take the case.


----------



## busybee01

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri is now in as well.
> 
> So that would now be Texas,  Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Missouri filing suit against the four Dumbass states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri joins 'fight' alongside Texas to challenge election before Supreme Court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dumbass states are the ones filing this idiotic suit that will be thrown out just like the rest of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court has already ordered the cheating states to respond to the Texas' suit.
> They have until tomorrow, just so you know.
> 
> So has the suit been "thrown out"?  No effin way.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court has already thrown out one suit after each side was asked for a respomse. Trump and his supporters are the cheaters.


----------



## colfax_m

iceberg said:


> like putting a quarter in a vibrating bed. he won't shut off for at least 2 minutes.


If I had a quarter for every time you accused me of not replying to your posts when in fact I did...


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

OKTexas said:


> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> The case in the OP has nothing to do with other cases, of course you know that, but deflection seems to be all you have. STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> Well hi, Poser! I see your dumb ass is still Trolling me again over your stupid ploy I didn't fall for. You're the fucking dumbass who posted your DD 214 as a challenge to prove you heap big brave warrior &  so you could display like a fucking peacock, an award you received.  That is the epitome of a *poser* and just one of many reasons why I use that moniker to peg your dumb ass for so long. All along I refused to display my DD 214, and instead posted my VA Benefits letter as proof of MY SEA/Nam deployments as agreed. And your dumb ass dismissed that as non-proof because it wasn't a DD 214...fucking bullshitter!
> 
> As far as the single item on topic, ALL of the cases have a common thread, notwithstanding your bullshit of trying to decouple them, one from another; Trump & Co. trying to put their collective thumbs on the scale. Tough shit Tex...you don't want to see it because you're just a fucking puppet. So piss off now Lil' Tex. You're the one making a fool of himself with your childish behavior in your 70's. TaTa *Poser*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well punk, first of all I'm not in my 70s and there in nothing in the TX suit that alleges any fraud. It simply points out States not following their own State laws, violations of due process and violations of the Constitution.
> 
> If you didn't spend so much time lying and deflecting you might be able to keep up. LMAO
> 
> .
Click to expand...

It does mention the potential for fraud in the voting methods adopted, and the states' legislatures' failure to properly adopt the voting methods with that high potential for fraud.  But, fraud is not the key allegation.  Only the failure of legislatures to properly adopt through legislation.

But, talking nuance to these mouth breathers is an exercise in frivolity, so I don't blame your for being brief.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

busybee01 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri is now in as well.
> 
> So that would now be Texas,  Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Missouri filing suit against the four Dumbass states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri joins 'fight' alongside Texas to challenge election before Supreme Court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dumbass states are the ones filing this idiotic suit that will be thrown out just like the rest of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court has already ordered the cheating states to respond to the Texas' suit.
> They have until tomorrow, just so you know.
> 
> So has the suit been "thrown out"?  No effin way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has already thrown out one suit after each side was asked for a respomse. Trump and his supporters are the cheaters.
Click to expand...

Man, you must have a huge ass hole, because you are pulling all sorts of stuff out of it.


----------



## iceberg

colfax_m said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> like putting a quarter in a vibrating bed. he won't shut off for at least 2 minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> If I had a quarter for every time you accused me of not replying to your posts when in fact I did...
Click to expand...

if i had a quarter for every time you actually answered a direct question i'd not even have that quarter to begin with.


----------



## Circe

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis-Texas tries to overturn the U.S. election result. Can it succeed? | Reuters
> 
> Texas asked the justices to immediately block the four states from using the voting results to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College, essentially erasing the will of millions of voters.
> 
> Biden has amassed 306 electoral votes - exceeding the necessary 270 - compared to Trump’s 232 in the state-by-state Electoral College that determines the election’s outcome. The four states contribute a combined 62 electoral votes to Biden’s total. Texas asked the justices to delay the Dec. 14 date for Electoral College votes to be cast, a date set by law in 1887.
> *******************************************************************************************************
> 
> Very interesting to me. So if they subtract 62 electoral votes from Biden's 306, that leaves him 234 votes, not the 270 he has to have. Of course, then Trump would have 232 still, which is less, but then what, legally? Would the one who got the most win (still Biden)? Or would it be thrown into the House of Representatives because no one got 270? In which case Trump would win, presumably.
> 
> I thought they'd try for different states of electors for several states, which would throw the election into the House, as it did before, 1877. And they did try: that was the Georgia effort, which failed a couple days ago, when the governor of Georgia refused.
> 
> I suppose this all goes nowhere, except that it might well educate both parties not to appease when there are voting cheats. And there are, too often.  If this ended by finally getting voter IDs, that would be great. If it ends by states making a lot more sure to cut out voting fraud and illegals voting, that would be really great.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that leaves it to the next step in the process, when neither candidate can get the requisite 270, which provides for a Contingent Election process governed by the 12 Amendment, which states:
> 
> _The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
> 
> The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
> 
> The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. *But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.* And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[a]
> 
> The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.__[_
> 
> And, in that case---1 vote per state---WHO WOULD WIN????
> 
> 
> 
> These sad twats don't see the end game...but even if that fails, I think there is a lot more to this than mere attempts to drive it to a one-vote-per-state outcome.  This is a SERIOUS threat to the Union.
Click to expand...


Thank you very much! I didn't know where that law was. As for who would win, I got that, yeah -----------


It IS Trump forces bringing these interesting actions, not Biden. There's a hint. 

As for a serious threat to the Union, such as it is, I think a coup d'etat or military takeover would be worse. All these actions have precedent, though doing both the separate slates and the Texas action at the same time ---- bold, very bold.   

It was the coronavirus that sunk Trump, IMO --- he was a shoo-in otherwise. Absolutely a shoo-in. The only reason I don't feel especially bad is that this is _force majeure. _Herbert Hoover didn't cause the Great Depression, either, but people voted him right out of the White House because it was a catastrophe, and someone at the top will always pay for a catastrophe, fair or not. Not, in this case, but here we are.


----------



## busybee01

BlindBoo said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one that went through the legislature.
> 
> *Harrisburg, PA* – Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with voter-friendly election reforms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Governor Wolf Signs Election Reform Bill Including New Mail-in Voting
> 
> 
> Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.governor.pa.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and that was pre-covid. what did PA do *after* covid to change their systems?
> 
> nice try but i'm not chasing your turds down the toilet. please stick to the lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The new law passed by the Legislature is at the heart of the issues in PA.  If you don't understand those you're just pissing in the wind.
> 
> "Consider the scenario in which it was used for the first time in a general election: during a public health crisis, with record voter turnout, and in a battleground state facing the ire of a president determined to undermine the voting process and spread misinformation.
> 
> “This was very much the perfect storm of the implementation of the new voting law in Pennsylvania,” said Suzanne Almeida, the former interim executive director and current counsel at the good-government group Common Cause Pennsylvania. “It was not perfect, but votes happened and they got counted and we have an outcome.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pandemic, partisan attacks exposed gaps in Pa.’s new mail-in voting law
> 
> 
> While many lawmakers agree changes are needed, finding common ground in the current hyper-partisan climate might be impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.inquirer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The extenuating circumstances did, however, magnify gaps in a law that was supposed to make voting easier. Those holes regarding “cured” ballots and signature matching then had to be filled through guidance from the Department of State, which prompted court challenges and opened the door for some Republicans — from President Donald Trump to state and local lawmakers — to launch unsubstantiated claims that the executive and judicial branches were attempting to swing the election in favor of Democrat Joe Biden.
> “Any of these areas where the secretary has had to make a call that has then been questioned by the legislature are, in my mind, faults of not having clear statutory guidance,” said Daniel Mallinson, an assistant professor of public policy and administration at Penn State Harrisburg.
Click to expand...


If the state legislature does not make specific guidelines then the state election commission can interpret the law. If the legislature does not like the interpretation then they can try to pass a law subject to approval or veto of the Governor.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, states can't make changes to their voting rules AT ALL without involving their legislatures.
> 
> 
> 
> Not legally, anyway.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, but we are talking about Dimbocraps ehre


----------



## Rogue AI

BULLDOG said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.
> 
> Now show me where these states followed their process.
> 
> You can't, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.
> 
> Ahiw me one case where Trump won.
> 
> You can’t, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Texas lawsuit is trash. It will dismissed out of hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from a dipwad who's already proven that he knows nothing whatsoever about the Texas lawsuit, this means . . . exactly as much as every other post you make, which is nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Texas wins the case, will all states who made voting rules changes without their legislature doing it have their EC votes voided, or just the ones listed in the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think this case would just cover the listed defendants, however any state that violated the constitution in this regard would be in jeopardy after the precedent was set.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas extended early voting without any input from the legislature. There goes those 38 EC votes for Trump down the drain.  Changes were made the same way across the country.
Click to expand...

That's a red herring as it pertains to in person voting. Nobody has challenged that, and many states did the same. This is about absentee ballots, verification (or lack thereof), and items that do not accommodate emergency measures like social distancing. Powers granted to governors are not granted to all executive branches such as election officials unless specified by the legislature or state Constitution.


----------



## Circe

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> See, that's the problem with original jurisdiction.  There is no vote for cert.  The SCOTUS MUST hear the case when the suit is between 2 or more states.



Uh-oh. I see trouble coming. 

New gal won't vote for Trump and people will get mad.

She can probably rehabilitate herself, though, if she votes conservative in other issues. Look at that awful Neil Gorsuch voting for trannies. We can't get rid of him because he's one of the only six we've got!


----------



## busybee01

bripat9643 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever read the articles?  Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and is was one of the things the Texas case said was an irregularity or illegal.
> 
> The SC won't take the case is my bet, or take it for some time down the road, where the people's choice of Biden is not affected.
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texans voted, Texans appointed their electors.  What another state does is none of their bee's wax, according to the constitution.... imo.  The people of those 4 states chose Biden, by landslides in most of them....there is no ambiguity.  The laws tweaked by the court rulings, truly matters naught...Biden, was chosen by their citizens to be our next president, in good faith....  they followed the election laws they were told were legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion isn't worth shit.  So if another state approves slavery, that's none of your business?  You realize that your fucking stupid, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no fraud that affected the results of the election.
> 
> The Texas etc lawsuit makes no mention of fraud?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There most certainly was.  That has been demonstrated over and over again.
Click to expand...


It has not been demonstrated even once. Trump's lawsuits hqave been tossed over and over again by state judges and federal judges. Republican and Democrat judges. Even judges appointed by Trump.


----------



## busybee01

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no fraud that affected the results of the election.
> 
> The Texas etc lawsuit makes no mention of fraud?
> 
> 
> 
> Fraud is like what happened in Georgia, when witnesses were sent home due to a fake emergency
> and then trays and trays of fresh new mail in ballots (the mail hidden under that table) were brought in to be filled in by remaining workers.
> Stephen Crowder has an excellent video on the matter.
Click to expand...


Which is a lie. No fraud happened in Georgia.


----------



## Concerned American

Rogue AI said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.
> 
> Now show me where these states followed their process.
> 
> You can't, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.
> 
> Ahiw me one case where Trump won.
> 
> You can’t, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Texas lawsuit is trash. It will dismissed out of hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from a dipwad who's already proven that he knows nothing whatsoever about the Texas lawsuit, this means . . . exactly as much as every other post you make, which is nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Texas wins the case, will all states who made voting rules changes without their legislature doing it have their EC votes voided, or just the ones listed in the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think this case would just cover the listed defendants, however any state that violated the constitution in this regard would be in jeopardy after the precedent was set.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas extended early voting without any input from the legislature. There goes those 38 EC votes for Trump down the drain.  Changes were made the same way across the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a red herring as it pertains to in person voting. Nobody has challenged that, and many states did the same. This is about absentee ballots, verification (or lack thereof), and items that do not accommodate emergency measures like social distancing. Powers granted to governors are not granted to all executive branches such as election officials unless specified by the legislature or state Constitution.
Click to expand...

Precedent is pretty clear, Emergencies do not suspend the constitution.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

busybee01 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what does this have to do with anything? the Texas lawsuit has been spelled out clearly, with references, sections of the states constitutions violated and how that impacted an outcomes against what their state (and now what, 9 others) voted fairly for.
> 
> did these states or did they not follow their own constitutional process to change how people voted in this election?
> 
> a YES | NO question doesn't contain this many excuses.
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it. Texas has no grounds to sue these states to force them to do anything. It's completely without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you read the pleadings?
> 
> Your response indicates that you haven't, but if you have, I want to hear what legal authority you are relying on to counter that argued by Texas.
> 
> *Complaint*
> 
> View attachment 426963
> View attachment 426964
> 
> What's your response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the problem. In Massachusetts vs EPA, the plaintiffs were able to prove that pollution from other states did directly affect them. That is not the case here. Every state has the right to regulate their state elections. None of these states have standing.
Click to expand...

By doing last moment alterations to their election laws Michigan, etc. has disenfranchised every other state
by putting Texas, and other like minded states, at a disadvantage.

Imagine entering a road race where, when you show up, you find out every person from the local town
has been given a four minute head start. A slight rules adjustment.


Does this seem at all troublesome to you?


----------



## JimBowie1958

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> And, the complaint establishes through precedent in _Anderson v. Celebrezze_ and in _Mass. v. EPA_ that Texas has standing to bring the action against other states as original actions in the SCOTUS.
> So far, all these internet, night-shift lawyers have failed to rebut that very sound LEGAL argument supporting Texas having standing, which these night-shift internet lawyers originally asserted but have suddenly abandoned for some reason.


Yep, the Texas suit has solid case law behind it, so if this were a perfect world, it is a slam dunk.

The question is, will the five conservative justices have the courage to enforce the letter of the law here, acknowledge the law and then weasel out, or just toss it out without comment as so many cowardly judges have done already, except for ONE DEMOCRAT judge who had the courage to say the PA case had merit, then the hacks on the PASC yanked the case away before the honest judge could here any evidence.


----------



## BlindBoo

busybee01 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one that went through the legislature.
> 
> *Harrisburg, PA* – Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with voter-friendly election reforms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Governor Wolf Signs Election Reform Bill Including New Mail-in Voting
> 
> 
> Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.governor.pa.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and that was pre-covid. what did PA do *after* covid to change their systems?
> 
> nice try but i'm not chasing your turds down the toilet. please stick to the lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The new law passed by the Legislature is at the heart of the issues in PA.  If you don't understand those you're just pissing in the wind.
> 
> "Consider the scenario in which it was used for the first time in a general election: during a public health crisis, with record voter turnout, and in a battleground state facing the ire of a president determined to undermine the voting process and spread misinformation.
> 
> “This was very much the perfect storm of the implementation of the new voting law in Pennsylvania,” said Suzanne Almeida, the former interim executive director and current counsel at the good-government group Common Cause Pennsylvania. “It was not perfect, but votes happened and they got counted and we have an outcome.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pandemic, partisan attacks exposed gaps in Pa.’s new mail-in voting law
> 
> 
> While many lawmakers agree changes are needed, finding common ground in the current hyper-partisan climate might be impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.inquirer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The extenuating circumstances did, however, magnify gaps in a law that was supposed to make voting easier. Those holes regarding “cured” ballots and signature matching then had to be filled through guidance from the Department of State, which prompted court challenges and opened the door for some Republicans — from President Donald Trump to state and local lawmakers — to launch unsubstantiated claims that the executive and judicial branches were attempting to swing the election in favor of Democrat Joe Biden.
> “Any of these areas where the secretary has had to make a call that has then been questioned by the legislature are, in my mind, faults of not having clear statutory guidance,” said Daniel Mallinson, an assistant professor of public policy and administration at Penn State Harrisburg.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the state legislature does not make specific guidelines then the state election commission can interpret the law. If the legislature does not like the interpretation then they can try to pass a law subject to approval or veto of the Governor.
Click to expand...


They want to invalidate all the mail in votes based on these type of administrative interpretations of the grey areas of the law that only affect a small number of ballots.


----------



## Concerned American

busybee01 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever read the articles?  Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and is was one of the things the Texas case said was an irregularity or illegal.
> 
> The SC won't take the case is my bet, or take it for some time down the road, where the people's choice of Biden is not affected.
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texans voted, Texans appointed their electors.  What another state does is none of their bee's wax, according to the constitution.... imo.  The people of those 4 states chose Biden, by landslides in most of them....there is no ambiguity.  The laws tweaked by the court rulings, truly matters naught...Biden, was chosen by their citizens to be our next president, in good faith....  they followed the election laws they were told were legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion isn't worth shit.  So if another state approves slavery, that's none of your business?  You realize that your fucking stupid, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no fraud that affected the results of the election.
> 
> The Texas etc lawsuit makes no mention of fraud?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There most certainly was.  That has been demonstrated over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has not been demonstrated even once. Trump's lawsuits hqave been tossed over and over again by state judges and federal judges. Republican and Democrat judges. Even judges appointed by Trump.
Click to expand...

The TX suit was brought by the TX AG--not Trump.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

busybee01 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no fraud that affected the results of the election.
> 
> The Texas etc lawsuit makes no mention of fraud?
> 
> 
> 
> Fraud is like what happened in Georgia, when witnesses were sent home due to a fake emergency
> and then trays and trays of fresh new mail in ballots (the mail hidden under that table) were brought in to be filled in by remaining workers.
> Stephen Crowder has an excellent video on the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is a lie. No fraud happened in Georgia.
Click to expand...

Stephen Crowder has an excellent video on the matter. You should watch it, if your nurses will allow it.


----------



## busybee01

bripat9643 said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to. Not unless there's a reason for SCOTUS to take up this case with someone who has nothing to do with whether any other state acted in accordance with it's own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can another state force a state to follow it's own laws?
> 
> The DA has prosecutorial discretion in charging crimes.  So how can another state force them to prosecute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they can.  How about pollution laws where water pollution goes into states that are downstream.
Click to expand...


These states are directly affected by pollution. That is not true in elections. Also we are talking about federal ;laws not state laws.


----------



## Circe

JimBowie1958 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, the complaint establishes through precedent in _Anderson v. Celebrezze_ and in _Mass. v. EPA_ that Texas has standing to bring the action against other states as original actions in the SCOTUS.
> So far, all these internet, night-shift lawyers have failed to rebut that very sound LEGAL argument supporting Texas having standing, which these night-shift internet lawyers originally asserted but have suddenly abandoned for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the Texas suit has solid case law behind it, so if this were a perfect world, it is a slam dunk.
> 
> The question is, will the five conservative justices have the courage to enforce the letter of the law here, acknowledge the law and then weasel out, or just toss it out without comment as so many cowardly judges have done already, except for ONE DEMOCRAT judge who had the courage to say the PA case had merit, then the hacks on the PASC yanked the case away before the honest judge could here any evidence.
Click to expand...


They'll weasel out, I think.


----------



## busybee01

bripat9643 said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has suggested disenfranchising the states.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're just suggesting disenfranchise some of the states, specifically some of the states that voted for Biden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top Pennsylvania Republicans pressure congressional delegation to challenge Biden’s victory
> 
> 
> The effort stands in contrast to the reaction of Arizona’s House Speaker, who rebuked the Trump-led pressure campaign on Friday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those states disenfranchised us with massive voter fraud which their laws facilitated.
Click to expand...


Which is a lie. Trump's lawyers have not produced one shred of evidence.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

busybee01 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what does this have to do with anything? the Texas lawsuit has been spelled out clearly, with references, sections of the states constitutions violated and how that impacted an outcomes against what their state (and now what, 9 others) voted fairly for.
> 
> did these states or did they not follow their own constitutional process to change how people voted in this election?
> 
> a YES | NO question doesn't contain this many excuses.
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it. Texas has no grounds to sue these states to force them to do anything. It's completely without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you read the pleadings?
> 
> Your response indicates that you haven't, but if you have, I want to hear what legal authority you are relying on to counter that argued by Texas.
> 
> *Complaint*
> 
> View attachment 426963
> View attachment 426964
> 
> What's your response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the problem. In Massachusetts vs EPA, the plaintiffs were able to prove that pollution from other states did directly affect them. That is not the case here. Every state has the right to regulate their state elections. None of these states have standing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why  _Mass v. EPA_ works together with _Anderson v. Celebrezze.

Anderson _holds that, in a Presidential Election, "the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes
cast for the various candidates in other States.” _ Mass v. EPA_ holds that "given that procedural right" _(that being the regulation procedure in that case, and Article III, Sec 2 of the U.S. Constitution in this case_) "and Massachusetts’ stake in protecting its quasi-sovereign interests, the Commonwealth is entitled to special solicitude in our standing analysis."


----------



## Faun

Cecilie1200 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not. There have been no illegal changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US constitution says State legislatures set the rules for Presidential elector selection, and thus the elections. State judges can't override that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marty thinks that a Republican legislature can pass a law that said democrats votes don 't get counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RealDumb thinks that if he dodges the topic enough, it will just go away.
Click to expand...

LOL









						Texas sues over election results in battleground states Biden won
					

In his long-shot lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton takes aim at the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia.




					www.cbsnews.com
				




_Paxton, who is facing accusations of bribery and abuse of office, *is asking the Supreme Court to extend the December 14 deadline* for the states' certification of presidential electors to allow for investigations into the alleged irregularities. He also wants the court to block the use of "unlawful election results without review and ratification by" the states' legislatures._​
... too fucking funny -- now we have the party of supposed strict constitutionalists against legislating from the bench, begging the highest court in the land to ignore the Constitution and legislate from the bench just so they can hand the election to Impeached Trump after he lost it.

Ain't gonna happen, tards.

Hypocrites, can you spell,  H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E ?


----------



## Circe

Concerned American said:


> Precedent is pretty clear, Emergencies do not suspend the constitution.



I can't agree with that!! We're in the middle of the worst suspension of the Constitution since the Civil War and WWI, and this one is worse than any of those. Can't work, have to wear weird stuff on our heads, can't go outside, can't go anywhere, can't assemble with anyone, even family members --- and on and on. This "emergency" didn't just suspend the Constitution, they've tied a rope around it's neck, hauled it over an oak branch, and are hanging onto its feet. 

I think we have to acknowledge what is actually happening, not just cite legal precedent that has nothing to do with the atrocities now going on.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Rye Catcher said:


> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably?  Seems you've already decided that "liberal shills" acted improperly or illegally.  Odd isn't it that nearly three dozen appeals by the Trump Supporters have been rejected by the Federal Court System.  It also seems that most of the judges have been appointed by Republican Presidents.
> 
> What is not probable are the facts that the GOP is closely acting with a seditious intent, and also close to violation US Code for inciting a riot:
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2102 -  Definitions
> 
> An not only Federal Judges and justices, but state justices and judges + AG Barr have found no fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High court rejects GOP bid to halt Biden's Pennsylvania win
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republicans' last-gasp bid to reverse Pennsylvania's certification of President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the electoral battleground.  The court without comment refused to call into question the certification process in Pennsylvania.  Democratic Gov. Tom...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
Click to expand...

wow, what a crazy Democultist LOL


----------



## Concerned American

Faun said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not. There have been no illegal changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US constitution says State legislatures set the rules for Presidential elector selection, and thus the elections. State judges can't override that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marty thinks that a Republican legislature can pass a law that said democrats votes don 't get counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RealDumb thinks that if he dodges the topic enough, it will just go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas sues over election results in battleground states Biden won
> 
> 
> In his long-shot lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton takes aim at the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​_Paxton, who is facing accusations of bribery and abuse of office, *is asking the Supreme Court to extend the December 14 deadline* for the states' certification of presidential electors to allow for investigations into the alleged irregularities. He also wants the court to block the use of "unlawful election results without review and ratification by" the states' legislatures._​
> ... too fucking funny -- now we have the party of supposed strict constitutionalists against legislating from the bench, begging the highest court in the land to ignore the Constitution and legislate from the bench just so they can hand the election to Impeached Trump after he lost it.
> 
> Ain't gonna happen, tards.
> 
> Hypocrites, can you spell,  H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E ?
Click to expand...

I don't know can you spell moron, F-A-U-N


----------



## Circe

Faun said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not. There have been no illegal changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US constitution says State legislatures set the rules for Presidential elector selection, and thus the elections. State judges can't override that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marty thinks that a Republican legislature can pass a law that said democrats votes don 't get counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RealDumb thinks that if he dodges the topic enough, it will just go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas sues over election results in battleground states Biden won
> 
> 
> In his long-shot lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton takes aim at the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​_Paxton, who is facing accusations of bribery and abuse of office, *is asking the Supreme Court to extend the December 14 deadline* for the states' certification of presidential electors to allow for investigations into the alleged irregularities. He also wants the court to block the use of "unlawful election results without review and ratification by" the states' legislatures._​
> ... too fucking funny -- now we have the party of supposed strict constitutionalists against legislating from the bench, begging the highest court in the land to ignore the Constitution and legislate from the bench just so they can hand the election to Impeached Trump after he lost it.
Click to expand...


Extend the deadline.......yow. Any chance of that?


----------



## bripat9643

BULLDOG said:


> Texas claims the  changes in the way the defendant states conducted the election did not come from those states legislatures. Isn't that the same thing as Texas Governor Abbot extending early voting without the state legislature?


If he did that, then yes it is.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Now the Democrats are fighting against the Right to Vote.
How low can they go?


----------



## bripat9643

Concerned American said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not. There have been no illegal changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US constitution says State legislatures set the rules for Presidential elector selection, and thus the elections. State judges can't override that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marty thinks that a Republican legislature can pass a law that said democrats votes don 't get counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RealDumb thinks that if he dodges the topic enough, it will just go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas sues over election results in battleground states Biden won
> 
> 
> In his long-shot lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton takes aim at the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​_Paxton, who is facing accusations of bribery and abuse of office, *is asking the Supreme Court to extend the December 14 deadline* for the states' certification of presidential electors to allow for investigations into the alleged irregularities. He also wants the court to block the use of "unlawful election results without review and ratification by" the states' legislatures._​
> ... too fucking funny -- now we have the party of supposed strict constitutionalists against legislating from the bench, begging the highest court in the land to ignore the Constitution and legislate from the bench just so they can hand the election to Impeached Trump after he lost it.
> 
> Ain't gonna happen, tards.
> 
> Hypocrites, can you spell,  H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know can you spell moron, F-A-U-N
Click to expand...


----------



## bripat9643

busybee01 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to. Not unless there's a reason for SCOTUS to take up this case with someone who has nothing to do with whether any other state acted in accordance with it's own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can another state force a state to follow it's own laws?
> 
> The DA has prosecutorial discretion in charging crimes.  So how can another state force them to prosecute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they can.  How about pollution laws where water pollution goes into states that are downstream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These states are directly affected by pollution. That is not true in elections. Also we are talking about federal ;laws not state laws.
Click to expand...

ROFL!  In other words, you are wrong.  Allowing wholesale fraud in your state cancels out the votes of people in every other state.


----------



## busybee01

bripat9643 said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> Did the states bypass their own constitution and laws to change voting laws?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. Do you have any examples from the lawsuit that you think are relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the argument seems to be that the state constitution has rules for "absentee ballots", and they sought to create a new class of balloting not defined in the constitution
> 
> So the state legislature created a new type of ballot, called a "mail-in" ballot, under rules the state legislature enacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They created it after the fact.
Click to expand...


It was signed by the Governor in October 2019. It was well before the election.


----------



## colfax_m

iceberg said:


> if i had a quarter for every time you actually answered a direct question i'd not even have that quarter to begin with.


Given you keep ignoring my answers, I sometimes wonder what the point is. 

I said I don't think any state did anything wrong, and you ignored it. I gave you the opportunity to discuss one such issue brought up in the lawsuit and you ignored it. I asked you why this case should even appear before SCOTUS and you ignored it. 

But you found plenty of time to bitch and moan.


----------



## bripat9643

busybee01 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has suggested disenfranchising the states.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're just suggesting disenfranchise some of the states, specifically some of the states that voted for Biden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top Pennsylvania Republicans pressure congressional delegation to challenge Biden’s victory
> 
> 
> The effort stands in contrast to the reaction of Arizona’s House Speaker, who rebuked the Trump-led pressure campaign on Friday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those states disenfranchised us with massive voter fraud which their laws facilitated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is a lie. Trump's lawyers have not produced one shred of evidence.
Click to expand...

Try watching something other than CNN


----------



## colfax_m

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Now the Democrats are fighting against the Right to Vote.


Who is fighting against the right to vote?

Texas is literally trying to get SCOTUS to take away the votes of everyone in these four states.


----------



## busybee01

bripat9643 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to. Not unless there's a reason for SCOTUS to take up this case with someone who has nothing to do with whether any other state acted in accordance with it's own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can another state force a state to follow it's own laws?
> 
> The DA has prosecutorial discretion in charging crimes.  So how can another state force them to prosecute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they can.  How about pollution laws where water pollution goes into states that are downstream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These states are directly affected by pollution. That is not true in elections. Also we are talking about federal ;laws not state laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  In other words, you are wrong.  Allowing wholesale fraud in your state cancels out the votes of people in every other state.
Click to expand...


No wholesale fraud happened.


----------



## Faun

Concerned American said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not. There have been no illegal changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US constitution says State legislatures set the rules for Presidential elector selection, and thus the elections. State judges can't override that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marty thinks that a Republican legislature can pass a law that said democrats votes don 't get counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RealDumb thinks that if he dodges the topic enough, it will just go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas sues over election results in battleground states Biden won
> 
> 
> In his long-shot lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton takes aim at the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​_Paxton, who is facing accusations of bribery and abuse of office, *is asking the Supreme Court to extend the December 14 deadline* for the states' certification of presidential electors to allow for investigations into the alleged irregularities. He also wants the court to block the use of "unlawful election results without review and ratification by" the states' legislatures._​
> ... too fucking funny -- now we have the party of supposed strict constitutionalists against legislating from the bench, begging the highest court in the land to ignore the Constitution and legislate from the bench just so they can hand the election to Impeached Trump after he lost it.
> 
> Ain't gonna happen, tards.
> 
> Hypocrites, can you spell,  H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know can you spell moron, F-A-U-N
Click to expand...

LOL

Slobbers an idiot who struggles with punctuation.


----------



## bripat9643

busybee01 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to. Not unless there's a reason for SCOTUS to take up this case with someone who has nothing to do with whether any other state acted in accordance with it's own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can another state force a state to follow it's own laws?
> 
> The DA has prosecutorial discretion in charging crimes.  So how can another state force them to prosecute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they can.  How about pollution laws where water pollution goes into states that are downstream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These states are directly affected by pollution. That is not true in elections. Also we are talking about federal ;laws not state laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  In other words, you are wrong.  Allowing wholesale fraud in your state cancels out the votes of people in every other state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No wholesale fraud happened.
Click to expand...


----------



## busybee01

bripat9643 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has suggested disenfranchising the states.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're just suggesting disenfranchise some of the states, specifically some of the states that voted for Biden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top Pennsylvania Republicans pressure congressional delegation to challenge Biden’s victory
> 
> 
> The effort stands in contrast to the reaction of Arizona’s House Speaker, who rebuked the Trump-led pressure campaign on Friday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those states disenfranchised us with massive voter fraud which their laws facilitated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is a lie. Trump's lawyers have not produced one shred of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try watching something other than CNN
Click to expand...


You can't understand anything higher than the Cartoon Network.


----------



## bripat9643

colfax_m said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the Democrats are fighting against the Right to Vote.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is fighting against the right to vote?
> 
> Texas is literally trying to get SCOTUS to take away the votes of everyone in these four states.
Click to expand...

They should have thought of that before they tried to swindle this election.


----------



## Rogue AI

colfax_m said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the Democrats are fighting against the Right to Vote.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is fighting against the right to vote?
> 
> Texas is literally trying to get SCOTUS to take away the votes of everyone in these four states.
Click to expand...

Nope, Texas is fighting to uphold the Constitution, that some ineligible votes would be collateral damage is incidental.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

bripat9643 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas claims the  changes in the way the defendant states conducted the election did not come from those states legislatures. Isn't that the same thing as Texas Governor Abbot extending early voting without the state legislature?
> 
> 
> 
> If he did that, then yes it is.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Let's all agree that both Texas, and the 4 defendant states cannot certify results because of these irregularities.

The result?  12th Amendment--1 State=1 vote.

Jezz.  I wonder who would win if that happens?


----------



## bripat9643

busybee01 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has suggested disenfranchising the states.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're just suggesting disenfranchise some of the states, specifically some of the states that voted for Biden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top Pennsylvania Republicans pressure congressional delegation to challenge Biden’s victory
> 
> 
> The effort stands in contrast to the reaction of Arizona’s House Speaker, who rebuked the Trump-led pressure campaign on Friday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those states disenfranchised us with massive voter fraud which their laws facilitated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is a lie. Trump's lawyers have not produced one shred of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try watching something other than CNN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't understand anything higher than the Cartoon Network.
Click to expand...

So you believe CNN is higher than the Cartoon Network?

BWAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## busybee01

bripat9643 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to. Not unless there's a reason for SCOTUS to take up this case with someone who has nothing to do with whether any other state acted in accordance with it's own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can another state force a state to follow it's own laws?
> 
> The DA has prosecutorial discretion in charging crimes.  So how can another state force them to prosecute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they can.  How about pollution laws where water pollution goes into states that are downstream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These states are directly affected by pollution. That is not true in elections. Also we are talking about federal ;laws not state laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  In other words, you are wrong.  Allowing wholesale fraud in your state cancels out the votes of people in every other state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No wholesale fraud happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That is your level of intelligence. Every judge has stated that Trump has provided no evidence.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Rogue AI said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the Democrats are fighting against the Right to Vote.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is fighting against the right to vote?
> 
> Texas is literally trying to get SCOTUS to take away the votes of everyone in these four states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, Texas is fighting to uphold the Constitution, that some ineligible votes would be collateral damage is incidental.
Click to expand...

Or, we can have a re-do.


Most likely the 12th Amendment will apply, with 1 vote per state, which would have unspecified results.....


----------



## Rye Catcher

Turtlesoup said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> In order to sue...you have to have standing. That means that you have to show that you were harmed by an action you are seeking to litigate.
> 
> Texas has no standing. They can not show where they were harmed by how another state runs their election
> 
> *DENIED*
> 
> 
> 
> The Hell they can't---------GA and the others fraudulent votes changes the election and nullifies Texas's legal votes.   In essence, not only does the corrupt/inept system of these 4 states disenfranchise their voters, but it also disenfranchises all the LEGAL voters in the US.   And FYI, I think Texas has more ummmm republican judges appointed than obama ones for their federal district.   Saddle up, Texas has a good shot at this.
Click to expand...


Silly turtle, She's correct.  To expand on her comment, to sue one must owe a duty to the plaintiff, and to breach that duty which caused a tort (harm) and causation (but for).


----------



## busybee01

bripat9643 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has suggested disenfranchising the states.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're just suggesting disenfranchise some of the states, specifically some of the states that voted for Biden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top Pennsylvania Republicans pressure congressional delegation to challenge Biden’s victory
> 
> 
> The effort stands in contrast to the reaction of Arizona’s House Speaker, who rebuked the Trump-led pressure campaign on Friday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those states disenfranchised us with massive voter fraud which their laws facilitated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is a lie. Trump's lawyers have not produced one shred of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try watching something other than CNN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't understand anything higher than the Cartoon Network.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe CNN is higher than the Cartoon Network?
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHA!
Click to expand...


That is your level of intelligence.


----------



## Concerned American

Circe said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> Precedent is pretty clear, Emergencies do not suspend the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't agree with that!! We're in the middle of the worst suspension of the Constitution since the Civil War and WWI, and this one is worse than any of those. Can't work, have to wear weird stuff on our heads, can't go outside, can't go anywhere, can't assemble with anyone, even family members --- and on and on. This "emergency" didn't just suspend the Constitution, they've tied a rope around it's neck, hauled it over an oak branch, and are hanging onto its feet.
> 
> I think we have to acknowledge what is actually happening, not just cite legal precedent that has nothing to do with the atrocities now going on.
Click to expand...

You'll get no argument from me that the constitution has effectively been suspended, however, it is still illegal and it is working its way through the courts.  I believe the constitution will prevail.


----------



## Faun

Circe said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not. There have been no illegal changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US constitution says State legislatures set the rules for Presidential elector selection, and thus the elections. State judges can't override that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marty thinks that a Republican legislature can pass a law that said democrats votes don 't get counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RealDumb thinks that if he dodges the topic enough, it will just go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas sues over election results in battleground states Biden won
> 
> 
> In his long-shot lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton takes aim at the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​_Paxton, who is facing accusations of bribery and abuse of office, *is asking the Supreme Court to extend the December 14 deadline* for the states' certification of presidential electors to allow for investigations into the alleged irregularities. He also wants the court to block the use of "unlawful election results without review and ratification by" the states' legislatures._​
> ... too fucking funny -- now we have the party of supposed strict constitutionalists against legislating from the bench, begging the highest court in the land to ignore the Constitution and legislate from the bench just so they can hand the election to Impeached Trump after he lost it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Extend the deadline.......yow. Any chance of that?
Click to expand...

You never know. But I seriously doubt it.


----------



## bripat9643

busybee01 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to. Not unless there's a reason for SCOTUS to take up this case with someone who has nothing to do with whether any other state acted in accordance with it's own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can another state force a state to follow it's own laws?
> 
> The DA has prosecutorial discretion in charging crimes.  So how can another state force them to prosecute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they can.  How about pollution laws where water pollution goes into states that are downstream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These states are directly affected by pollution. That is not true in elections. Also we are talking about federal ;laws not state laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  In other words, you are wrong.  Allowing wholesale fraud in your state cancels out the votes of people in every other state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No wholesale fraud happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your level of intelligence. Every judge has stated that Trump has provided no evidence.
Click to expand...

Wrong.


----------



## colfax_m

Rogue AI said:


> Nope, Texas is fighting to uphold the Constitution, that some ineligible votes would be collateral damage is incidental.


You think every voter in these four states was ineligible?

That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day.


----------



## busybee01

LordBrownTrout said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have said here is untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.
Click to expand...


These states followed the relevent laws in their state.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not. There have been no illegal changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US constitution says State legislatures set the rules for Presidential elector selection, and thus the elections. State judges can't override that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marty thinks that a Republican legislature can pass a law that said democrats votes don 't get counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RealDumb thinks that if he dodges the topic enough, it will just go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas sues over election results in battleground states Biden won
> 
> 
> In his long-shot lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton takes aim at the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​_Paxton, who is facing accusations of bribery and abuse of office, *is asking the Supreme Court to extend the December 14 deadline* for the states' certification of presidential electors to allow for investigations into the alleged irregularities. He also wants the court to block the use of "unlawful election results without review and ratification by" the states' legislatures._​
> ... too fucking funny -- now we have the party of supposed strict constitutionalists against legislating from the bench, begging the highest court in the land to ignore the Constitution and legislate from the bench just so they can hand the election to Impeached Trump after he lost it.
> 
> Ain't gonna happen, tards.
> 
> Hypocrites, can you spell,  H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know can you spell moron, F-A-U-N
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thanks for letting me know I get under your skin.


----------



## bripat9643

busybee01 said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have said here is untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These states followed the relevent laws in their state.
Click to expand...

No they didn't, turd.


----------



## busybee01

bripat9643 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to. Not unless there's a reason for SCOTUS to take up this case with someone who has nothing to do with whether any other state acted in accordance with it's own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can another state force a state to follow it's own laws?
> 
> The DA has prosecutorial discretion in charging crimes.  So how can another state force them to prosecute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they can.  How about pollution laws where water pollution goes into states that are downstream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These states are directly affected by pollution. That is not true in elections. Also we are talking about federal ;laws not state laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  In other words, you are wrong.  Allowing wholesale fraud in your state cancels out the votes of people in every other state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No wholesale fraud happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your level of intelligence. Every judge has stated that Trump has provided no evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
Click to expand...


You are wrong as usual.


----------



## Rogue AI

colfax_m said:


> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, Texas is fighting to uphold the Constitution, that some ineligible votes would be collateral damage is incidental.
> 
> 
> 
> You think every voter in these four states was ineligible?
> 
> That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day.
Click to expand...

Of course not. Especially since I live in one of those states. The matter at hand is absentee ballots. Nobody has challenged the validity of in person voting.


----------



## Dick Foster

Lysistrata said:


> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.


States rights DO NOT include the right to defraud the other states, not by election rigging or any other method.


----------



## busybee01

bripat9643 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have said here is untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These states followed the relevent laws in their state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they didn't, turd.
Click to expand...


Yes they did.


----------



## busybee01

Rogue AI said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, Texas is fighting to uphold the Constitution, that some ineligible votes would be collateral damage is incidental.
> 
> 
> 
> You think every voter in these four states was ineligible?
> 
> That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course not. Especially since I live in one of those states. The matter at hand is absentee ballots. Nobody has challenged the validity of in person voting.
Click to expand...


These states are beating a dead horse.


----------



## Faun

colfax_m said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the Democrats are fighting against the Right to Vote.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is fighting against the right to vote?
> 
> Texas is literally trying to get SCOTUS to take away the votes of everyone in these four states.
Click to expand...

Who needs those 20 million votes?


----------



## busybee01

Concerned American said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks, where did you earn your law degree?  A box of Coco Puffs?
Click to expand...


You have no clue what law is.


----------



## mascale

Most likely the Elections Clause will be applied, with references to Federalist 59 noted--except that it will be hard to get all that into the one sentence denial of the complaint--maybe Thursday night, this week.
_______________________
“Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm,” Tuesday night.
____________________________

1. Texas alleges that it has standing among all 50 states, most of which are not getting involved:  To create the original filing.
2. *The Elections Clause, per Federalist 59, is precisely apprehensive of what Texas is doing.  *
3. *States have election codes and manuals, able to be locally reviewed well in advance of Election Day.  California has reams of code specifically devoted just to Emergency Procedures--voting from out of county, an example.*
4.  *Nothing is shown in the filing about such codes and manuals, or local court interpretations.*
5.  Those are local matters.
6.  Alleging, "This happened" is not evidence prima facie because "That was done."
7.  Matters unforeseen happen.  Ground events are not cited.

"Crow, James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(People Pray for this to happen:  Matt 25:  14-30!)


----------



## busybee01

OKTexas said:


> mascale said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Texas matter has no litigated findings on which to rely.
> 
> "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
> (For a real sniff of foreign intervention: See Deut 23: 19-20, about the gouging and screwing that Moses likely learned as kid--from Acts 7 a household art and skill of Pharaoh!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there is, Bush v. Gore is one precedent that said votes within a State can not be treated differently. GA treated mail in ballots differently than in person voting. Some counties in PA allowed voters to fix their defective ballots, while others didn't. That's just two of the due process arguments being made by TX.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


There is a huge difference. Voters who vote in person can seek assistance in voting. That may not be ne cessarily true with mail in ballots. No equal protection case here.


----------



## busybee01

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> Did the states bypass their own constitution and laws to change voting laws?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. Do you have any examples from the lawsuit that you think are relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the argument seems to be that the state constitution has rules for "absentee ballots", and they sought to create a new class of balloting not defined in the constitution
> 
> So the state legislature created a new type of ballot, called a "mail-in" ballot, under rules the state legislature enacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They created it after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking moron, Pennsylvania used mail-in ballots in their primary election in accordance with the new law. Republicans had their opportunity then to challenge the constitutionality of that law if it were really a problem for them. They don't get to sit on that position and wait to see if they win or lose an election, and then attempt to disenfranchise 2.6 million voters because they lost the election over a law that was constitutional when the election was held and the voters followed the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you don't contest the constitutionality of some law by some arbitrary deadline that Dims have defined, then you can never contest it?  What about Plessy vs. Fergusen?  How long after the segregation laws were passed was that law contested?
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> Dim fraud has disenfranchised 74 million voters, douchebag.
Click to expand...


You are trying to disenfranchise 80 million voters.


----------



## busybee01

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bad argument to attempt. A monority of voters elected this president in 2016. Were voters in the more populous states disenfranchised?
> 
> 
> 
> Every voter in every election whose candidate does not win is "disenfranchised" if that's how you wish to
> look at things. The question is was an election fairly contested? Or not?
> 
> We know for absolutely certain the 2020 presidential election was as dirty and corrupt as can be.
> And the aftermath has been corrupt too. Appeals to lower and state courts have been summarily rejected
> out of hand.
> The solution when lower courts refuse to honestly deal with things (ignoring Dominion and ballot fraud)  is to take it to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...


Tbhe federal courts have rejected them as well. That includes judges appointed by Trump.


----------



## Cecilie1200

postman said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to. Not unless there's a reason for SCOTUS to take up this case with someone who has nothing to do with whether any other state acted in accordance with it's own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can another state force a state to follow it's own laws?
> 
> The DA has prosecutorial discretion in charging crimes.  So how can another state force them to prosecute?
Click to expand...


The question is whether other states can force a state to follow FEDERAL law.

That pesky fucking Constitution.  Keeps getting in your way, doesn't it?


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> Did the states bypass their own constitution and laws to change voting laws?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. Do you have any examples from the lawsuit that you think are relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the argument seems to be that the state constitution has rules for "absentee ballots", and they sought to create a new class of balloting not defined in the constitution
> 
> So the state legislature created a new type of ballot, called a "mail-in" ballot, under rules the state legislature enacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They created it after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking moron, Pennsylvania used mail-in ballots in their primary election in accordance with the new law. Republicans had their opportunity then to challenge the constitutionality of that law if it were really a problem for them. They don't get to sit on that position and wait to see if they win or lose an election, and then attempt to disenfranchise 2.6 million voters because they lost the election over a law that was constitutional when the election was held and the voters followed the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you don't contest the constitutionality of some law by some arbitrary deadline that Dims have defined, then you can never contest it?  What about Plessy vs. Fergusen?  How long after the segregation laws were passed was that law contested?
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> Dim fraud has disenfranchised 74 million voters, douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are trying to disenfranchise 80 million voters.
Click to expand...


No, YOU are, by insisting that the election be decided by tainted election procedures.


----------



## Cecilie1200

postman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their constitution process is controlled by the courts of their state.  Not by the courts of another state.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One state can't interpret the constitution of another state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supreme court gives great deference to the courts of the states. After all, who knows more about the legislative intent, than those that wrote it.
Click to expand...


The state courts didn't write the state Constitutions or the state election laws, and they sure as shit didn't write the US Constitution.  Please stop talking out of your ass, because the methane smell is polluting the board.


----------



## Cecilie1200

postman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those states disenfranchised us with massive voter fraud which their laws facilitated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said the same thing about gay marriage somehow debasing heterosexual marriage.
> 
> You were wrong about that too.
Click to expand...


No, he wasn't.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

busybee01 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bad argument to attempt. A monority of voters elected this president in 2016. Were voters in the more populous states disenfranchised?
> 
> 
> 
> Every voter in every election whose candidate does not win is "disenfranchised" if that's how you wish to
> look at things. The question is was an election fairly contested? Or not?
> 
> We know for absolutely certain the 2020 presidential election was as dirty and corrupt as can be.
> And the aftermath has been corrupt too. Appeals to lower and state courts have been summarily rejected
> out of hand.
> The solution when lower courts refuse to honestly deal with things (ignoring Dominion and ballot fraud)  is to take it to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tbhe federal courts have rejected them as well. That includes judges appointed by Trump.
Click to expand...

Yes. The Supreme Court has done it's job when the lower state and federal courts refused to do theirs
because they know no one is going to hold them accountable. 

Disgusting but it's just what we saw in Gore v Bush in 2000. In the second Trump term I would like to see
some accountability from these petty autocrats in robes. 

Anyone who can say he sees no evidence of fraud after being informed about Dominion needs to be
removed from office and lose any pensions or remunerations due.


----------



## Cecilie1200

bripat9643 said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those states disenfranchised us with massive voter fraud which their laws facilitated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said the same thing about gay marriage somehow debasing heterosexual marriage.
> 
> You were wrong about that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt I ever used the word "debased."  I wasn't wrong about gay marriage.  It's a joke.
Click to expand...


But then, so are a lot of heterosexual marriages these days.


----------



## Lysistrata

Dick Foster said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> States right DO NOT include the right to defraud the other states, not by election rigging or any other method.
Click to expand...


No state "defrauded" another state. The electoral votes of Texas went into trump's column. If one state can attack another state's execution of its own laws, what happens to the concept of state sovereignty? Can New York now sit in judgment of the laws of Texas, how they are passed, and how they are applied?


----------



## mascale

Per the Election Clause, per Federalist 59:  The usurpation of the Supreme Court to propound a state grievance is what is tainted.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(People Pray for this to happen: Matt 25: 14-30!)


----------



## Cecilie1200

postman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court gives great deference to the courts of the states. After all, who knows more about the legislative intent, than those that wrote it.
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court over rules state laws all the time, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supreme court invalidates state laws that are unconstitutional or extra-legal.
> 
> But the court doesn't mandate a states laws be followed.  Ex: the court can't point to the states prisoners on death row, and insist they be executed.
Click to expand...


Well, that would depend on the law in question, and the court case which is brought to them.

But in this case, the law ultimately being violated is the US Constitution.


----------



## Indeependent

Lysistrata said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
> 
> 
> 
> States right DO NOT include the right to defraud the other states, not by election rigging or any other method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No state "defrauded" another state. The electoral votes of Texas went into trump's column. If one state can attack another state's execution of its own laws, what happens to the concept of state sovereignty? Can New York now sit in judgment of the laws of Texas, how they are passed, and how they are applied?
Click to expand...

Only if a law affecting that state has been violated.
As pointed out a few hours ago, Texas would also have to forfeit it's EVs and have a recount.


----------



## mascale

The Constitution is clear.  Texas cannot interfere in the other state elections.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(People Pray for this to happen: Matt 25: 14-30!)


----------



## Cecilie1200

postman said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> Did the states bypass their own constitution and laws to change voting laws?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. Do you have any examples from the lawsuit that you think are relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the argument seems to be that the state constitution has rules for "absentee ballots", and they sought to create a new class of balloting not defined in the constitution
> 
> So the state legislature created a new type of ballot, called a "mail-in" ballot, under rules the state legislature enacted.
Click to expand...


You clearly didn't bother to read anything about the actual case, which is why you're now resorting to "It seems to be this, based on what I have imagined is going on".

The argument actually IS that the US Constitution says that the state legislatures - and no one else - will decide the state election laws.  The legislatures of each of these four states passed election laws in accordance with the US Constitution's directive, and then government officials who are NOT the state legislature decided to change those laws on the fly, which is a violation of the US Constitution.

The changes in question, and who made them, depend on which state you're talking about.


----------



## Faun

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bad argument to attempt. A monority of voters elected this president in 2016. Were voters in the more populous states disenfranchised?
> 
> 
> 
> Every voter in every election whose candidate does not win is "disenfranchised" if that's how you wish to
> look at things. The question is was an election fairly contested? Or not?
> 
> We know for absolutely certain the 2020 presidential election was as dirty and corrupt as can be.
> And the aftermath has been corrupt too. Appeals to lower and state courts have been summarily rejected
> out of hand.
> The solution when lower courts refuse to honestly deal with things (ignoring Dominion and ballot fraud)  is to take it to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tbhe federal courts have rejected them as well. That includes judges appointed by Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. The Supreme Court has done it's job when the lower state and federal courts refused to do theirs
> because they know no one is going to hold them accountable.
> 
> Disgusting but it's just what we saw in Gore v Bush in 2000. In the second Trump term I would like to see
> some accountability from these petty autocrats in robes.
> 
> Anyone who can say he sees no evidence of fraud after being informed about Dominion needs to be
> removed from office and lose any pensions or remunerations due.
Click to expand...

Imbecile, there was nothing wrong with Dominion.


----------



## Cecilie1200

postman said:


> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court gives great deference to the courts of the states. After all, who knows more about the legislative intent, than those that wrote it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Courts don't write legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Case law defines legislation.
> In essence they write the regulations.
Click to expand...


No, the actual words on the papers, which the legislature voted on and the governor signed, define legislation.

Your "essence" is so much leftist tyranny, and that's it.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Social media is full of Trombies claiming that THIS IS IT! This is the lawsuit that overturns the election.

It is also full of Trombies congratulating themselves for not rioting and burning down cities in response to the election...”like the libs did”.

I feel a collision coming.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please we have just had several years of Dems accusing every one who doesn't share their agenda with every crime misdemeanor and/or perversion they can think of without the first shred of evidence. Best expect the shoe to be on the other foot if Biden should actually manage to sleeze his way into office and for impeachment proceedings to commence immediately. Besides who are you to claim the evidence is invalid before it is even all presented? If those States have accepted illegal votes or deliberately encouraged illegal voting in a Federal election they have committed a crime against the Nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. So because you feel wronged over something completely different that affects this election how?
> 
> That fails basic logic. Sorry your feewings were hewt snowflake  but like...tough shit. You don't get to overturn an election based on your feelings.
> 
> As far as evidence...it's been over a month and about 60 court cases...when were you planning on presenting this "evidence"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is trying to "overturn" an election. A great many people believe that corrupt officials manipulated the count to put who they wanted in office rather than the candidate that actually got the most votes. Why would anyone who wants a fair and honest election mind people checking to make sure that it was? All this resistance only convinces people you have something to hide. It would be a very bad idea to go on with as many Americans as is current thinking that what is being attempted is a coup rather than an election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do you need to check?
> 
> How many recounts are needed?
> 
> The answer is as many as you need until Trump is selected no matter if the evidence does not support the claim Trump lost because of fraud!
> 
> Hell courts have rejected every case except one and that one was overturned...
> 
> So how many times must you be told Trump lost?
Click to expand...

Don't tell me. Prove it. We believe that's a lie and are not overly interested in sitting back and watching our beloved Nation turned into just another third world shithole. Plain enough.


----------



## mascale

The state legislatures can create election codes and state approved procedures.  The Elections Clause prohibits Texas from interfering!  Federalist 59, at the end.
__________________________
The people of America may be warmly attached to the government of the Union, at times when the particular rulers of particular States, stimulated by the natural rivalship of power, and by the hopes of personal aggrandizement, and supported by a strong faction in each of those States, may be in a very opposite temper. This diversity of sentiment between a majority of the people, and the individuals who have the greatest credit in their councils, is exemplified in some of the States at the present moment, on the present question.* The scheme of separate confederacies, which will always nultiply the chances of ambition, will be a never failing bait to all such influential characters in the State administrations as are capable of preferring their own emolument and advancement to the public weal. With so effectual a weapon in their hands as the exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, a combination of a few such men, in a few of the most considerable States, where the temptation will always be the strongest, might accomplish the destruction of the Union, by seizing the opportunity of some casual dissatisfaction among the people (and which perhaps they may themselves have excited), to discontinue the choice of members for the federal House of Representatives. It ought never to be forgotten, that a firm union of this country, under an efficient government, will probably be an increasing object of jealousy to more than one nation of Europe; and that enterprises to subvert it will sometimes originate in the intrigues of foreign powers, and will seldom fail to be patronized and abetted by some of them. Its preservation, therefore ought in no case that can be avoided, to be committed to the guardianship of any but those whose situation will uniformly beget an immediate interest in the faithful and vigilant performance of the trust. *
________________
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(People Pray for this to happen: Matt 25: 14-30!)


----------



## Faun

LoneLaugher said:


> Social media is full of Trombies claiming that THIS IS IT! This is the lawsuit that overturns the election.
> 
> It is also full of Trombies congratulating themselves for not rioting and burning down cities in response to the election...”like the libs did”.
> 
> I feel a collision coming.


And when this one fails them, it will be the next one that will do it for them.


----------



## candycorn

9thIDdoc said:


> Mad_Jack_Flint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please we have just had several years of Dems accusing every one who doesn't share their agenda with every crime misdemeanor and/or perversion they can think of without the first shred of evidence. Best expect the shoe to be on the other foot if Biden should actually manage to sleeze his way into office and for impeachment proceedings to commence immediately. Besides who are you to claim the evidence is invalid before it is even all presented? If those States have accepted illegal votes or deliberately encouraged illegal voting in a Federal election they have committed a crime against the Nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. So because you feel wronged over something completely different that affects this election how?
> 
> That fails basic logic. Sorry your feewings were hewt snowflake  but like...tough shit. You don't get to overturn an election based on your feelings.
> 
> As far as evidence...it's been over a month and about 60 court cases...when were you planning on presenting this "evidence"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is trying to "overturn" an election. A great many people believe that corrupt officials manipulated the count to put who they wanted in office rather than the candidate that actually got the most votes. Why would anyone who wants a fair and honest election mind people checking to make sure that it was? All this resistance only convinces people you have something to hide. It would be a very bad idea to go on with as many Americans as is current thinking that what is being attempted is a coup rather than an election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do you need to check?
> 
> How many recounts are needed?
> 
> The answer is as many as you need until Trump is selected no matter if the evidence does not support the claim Trump lost because of fraud!
> 
> Hell courts have rejected every case except one and that one was overturned...
> 
> So how many times must you be told Trump lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't tell me. Prove it. We believe that's a lie and are not overly interested in sitting back and watching our beloved Nation turned into just another third world shithole. Plain enough.
Click to expand...

Georgia has been counted 3 times. Joe won every count. Thats proof enough for you to admit Joe won Georgia...right?


----------



## busybee01

OKTexas said:


> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> The case in the OP has nothing to do with other cases, of course you know that, but deflection seems to be all you have. STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> Well hi, Poser! I see your dumb ass is still Trolling me again over your stupid ploy I didn't fall for. You're the fucking dumbass who posted your DD 214 as a challenge to prove you heap big brave warrior &  so you could display like a fucking peacock, an award you received.  That is the epitome of a *poser* and just one of many reasons why I use that moniker to peg your dumb ass for so long. All along I refused to display my DD 214, and instead posted my VA Benefits letter as proof of MY SEA/Nam deployments as agreed. And your dumb ass dismissed that as non-proof because it wasn't a DD 214...fucking bullshitter!
> 
> As far as the single item on topic, ALL of the cases have a common thread, notwithstanding your bullshit of trying to decouple them, one from another; Trump & Co. trying to put their collective thumbs on the scale. Tough shit Tex...you don't want to see it because you're just a fucking puppet. So piss off now Lil' Tex. You're the one making a fool of himself with your childish behavior in your 70's. TaTa *Poser*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well punk, first of all I'm not in my 70s and there in nothing in the TX suit that alleges any fraud. It simply points out States not following their own State laws, violations of due process and violations of the Constitution.
> 
> If you didn't spend so much time lying and deflecting you might be able to keep up. LMAO
> 
> .
Click to expand...


They are providing no evidence. This is a rehash of the same arguments that have been thrown out in state and federal courts.


----------



## Indeependent

busybee01 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> The case in the OP has nothing to do with other cases, of course you know that, but deflection seems to be all you have. STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> Well hi, Poser! I see your dumb ass is still Trolling me again over your stupid ploy I didn't fall for. You're the fucking dumbass who posted your DD 214 as a challenge to prove you heap big brave warrior &  so you could display like a fucking peacock, an award you received.  That is the epitome of a *poser* and just one of many reasons why I use that moniker to peg your dumb ass for so long. All along I refused to display my DD 214, and instead posted my VA Benefits letter as proof of MY SEA/Nam deployments as agreed. And your dumb ass dismissed that as non-proof because it wasn't a DD 214...fucking bullshitter!
> 
> As far as the single item on topic, ALL of the cases have a common thread, notwithstanding your bullshit of trying to decouple them, one from another; Trump & Co. trying to put their collective thumbs on the scale. Tough shit Tex...you don't want to see it because you're just a fucking puppet. So piss off now Lil' Tex. You're the one making a fool of himself with your childish behavior in your 70's. TaTa *Poser*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well punk, first of all I'm not in my 70s and there in nothing in the TX suit that alleges any fraud. It simply points out States not following their own State laws, violations of due process and violations of the Constitution.
> 
> If you didn't spend so much time lying and deflecting you might be able to keep up. LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are providing no evidence. This is a rehash of the same arguments that have been thrown out in state and federal courts.
Click to expand...

Do you know the case they are presenting?


----------



## busybee01

Cecilie1200 said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can apply equal protection when your state has been given affirmative action.
> 
> You have a state which gets 1.2 EC votes for every million citizens, arguing equal protection with a state which gets 1.8 EC votes for every million citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, spare us with the false equivalency bullshit.  "We don't have to follow the law, because we don't have the pure mob rule democracy that we want!!!"
> 
> The operative part of the phrase "equal protection under the law" is actually "UNDER THE LAW".  The law - in this case, the US Constitution - says that election laws are set by state legislatures.  Not by the governor, not by the state Supreme Court, not by the Secretary of State.  If a state's election was being governed by arbitrary decisions made by those other people, rather than by the laws passed by the state legislature, then that is a violation of the US Constitution.
> 
> And there's no amount of whining that "Well, the whole election is not fair, because it isn't done the way I think it should be!!!" that's going to change that fact, or be worth a taco fart in a wind tunnel to anyone here.
Click to expand...


State legislatures include the Governor. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret state constitutions. State officials also have the right to interpret laws. If that interpretation conflicts with the legislature then the legislature can pass a propos3ed law subject to approval of the Governor.


----------



## busybee01

Indeependent said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> The case in the OP has nothing to do with other cases, of course you know that, but deflection seems to be all you have. STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> Well hi, Poser! I see your dumb ass is still Trolling me again over your stupid ploy I didn't fall for. You're the fucking dumbass who posted your DD 214 as a challenge to prove you heap big brave warrior &  so you could display like a fucking peacock, an award you received.  That is the epitome of a *poser* and just one of many reasons why I use that moniker to peg your dumb ass for so long. All along I refused to display my DD 214, and instead posted my VA Benefits letter as proof of MY SEA/Nam deployments as agreed. And your dumb ass dismissed that as non-proof because it wasn't a DD 214...fucking bullshitter!
> 
> As far as the single item on topic, ALL of the cases have a common thread, notwithstanding your bullshit of trying to decouple them, one from another; Trump & Co. trying to put their collective thumbs on the scale. Tough shit Tex...you don't want to see it because you're just a fucking puppet. So piss off now Lil' Tex. You're the one making a fool of himself with your childish behavior in your 70's. TaTa *Poser*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well punk, first of all I'm not in my 70s and there in nothing in the TX suit that alleges any fraud. It simply points out States not following their own State laws, violations of due process and violations of the Constitution.
> 
> If you didn't spend so much time lying and deflecting you might be able to keep up. LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are providing no evidence. This is a rehash of the same arguments that have been thrown out in state and federal courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know the case they are presenting?
Click to expand...


It is just rehashed cow manure that has been rejected by state and federal courts. In these states, there is plenty of cow manure they can use.


----------



## Indeependent

busybee01 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> The case in the OP has nothing to do with other cases, of course you know that, but deflection seems to be all you have. STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> Well hi, Poser! I see your dumb ass is still Trolling me again over your stupid ploy I didn't fall for. You're the fucking dumbass who posted your DD 214 as a challenge to prove you heap big brave warrior &  so you could display like a fucking peacock, an award you received.  That is the epitome of a *poser* and just one of many reasons why I use that moniker to peg your dumb ass for so long. All along I refused to display my DD 214, and instead posted my VA Benefits letter as proof of MY SEA/Nam deployments as agreed. And your dumb ass dismissed that as non-proof because it wasn't a DD 214...fucking bullshitter!
> 
> As far as the single item on topic, ALL of the cases have a common thread, notwithstanding your bullshit of trying to decouple them, one from another; Trump & Co. trying to put their collective thumbs on the scale. Tough shit Tex...you don't want to see it because you're just a fucking puppet. So piss off now Lil' Tex. You're the one making a fool of himself with your childish behavior in your 70's. TaTa *Poser*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well punk, first of all I'm not in my 70s and there in nothing in the TX suit that alleges any fraud. It simply points out States not following their own State laws, violations of due process and violations of the Constitution.
> 
> If you didn't spend so much time lying and deflecting you might be able to keep up. LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are providing no evidence. This is a rehash of the same arguments that have been thrown out in state and federal courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know the case they are presenting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is just rehashed cow manure that has been rejected by state and federal courts. In these states, there is plenty of cow manure they can use.
Click to expand...

I asked...Do you know the case they are presenting?
You responded...No.

Now go look up the case they are presenting; it should only take a few minutes.


----------



## iceberg

busybee01 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can apply equal protection when your state has been given affirmative action.
> 
> You have a state which gets 1.2 EC votes for every million citizens, arguing equal protection with a state which gets 1.8 EC votes for every million citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, spare us with the false equivalency bullshit.  "We don't have to follow the law, because we don't have the pure mob rule democracy that we want!!!"
> 
> The operative part of the phrase "equal protection under the law" is actually "UNDER THE LAW".  The law - in this case, the US Constitution - says that election laws are set by state legislatures.  Not by the governor, not by the state Supreme Court, not by the Secretary of State.  If a state's election was being governed by arbitrary decisions made by those other people, rather than by the laws passed by the state legislature, then that is a violation of the US Constitution.
> 
> And there's no amount of whining that "Well, the whole election is not fair, because it isn't done the way I think it should be!!!" that's going to change that fact, or be worth a taco fart in a wind tunnel to anyone here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State legislatures include the Governor. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret state constitutions. State officials also have the right to interpret laws. If that interpretation conflicts with the legislature then the legislature can pass a propos3ed law subject to approval of the Governor.
Click to expand...

the legislative branch includes the executive?

that's some funny assed shit right there.


----------



## bravoactual

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
Click to expand...


In the end, which of course you do not show, his lawsuit was rejected.


----------



## Indeependent

iceberg said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can apply equal protection when your state has been given affirmative action.
> 
> You have a state which gets 1.2 EC votes for every million citizens, arguing equal protection with a state which gets 1.8 EC votes for every million citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, spare us with the false equivalency bullshit.  "We don't have to follow the law, because we don't have the pure mob rule democracy that we want!!!"
> 
> The operative part of the phrase "equal protection under the law" is actually "UNDER THE LAW".  The law - in this case, the US Constitution - says that election laws are set by state legislatures.  Not by the governor, not by the state Supreme Court, not by the Secretary of State.  If a state's election was being governed by arbitrary decisions made by those other people, rather than by the laws passed by the state legislature, then that is a violation of the US Constitution.
> 
> And there's no amount of whining that "Well, the whole election is not fair, because it isn't done the way I think it should be!!!" that's going to change that fact, or be worth a taco fart in a wind tunnel to anyone here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State legislatures include the Governor. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret state constitutions. State officials also have the right to interpret laws. If that interpretation conflicts with the legislature then the legislature can pass a propos3ed law subject to approval of the Governor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the legislative branch includes the executive?
> 
> that's some funny assed shit right there.
Click to expand...

I know, I know, you cam't make this shit up...


----------



## busybee01

Cecilie1200 said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't follow their "constitutional process," numskull.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their constitution process is controlled by the courts of their state.  Not by the courts of another state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will never understand why leftists think, "If I sound like I'm just too stupid to understand, it will be a brilliant debate tactic!"
> 
> The Constitution primarily in question here is the US Constitution.  Maybe you've heard of it.  It states, very clearly, that state election law is set by the state legislature, not by any other state government entity.  To the extent that state government entities may have violated their own state Constitution in regards to election law, that would also be a violation of the US Constitution.
> 
> For the record, though, the state supreme court does not "control" the state constitution, either.  That's also controlled by the state legislatures, and the people they represent.
Click to expand...


State judges have the right to interpret the state constitution. Legislatures cannot violate state constitutions.


----------



## busybee01

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri is now in as well.
> 
> So that would now be Texas,  Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Missouri filing suit against the four Dumbass states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri joins 'fight' alongside Texas to challenge election before Supreme Court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dumbass states are the ones filing this idiotic suit that will be thrown out just like the rest of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court has already ordered the cheating states to respond to the Texas' suit.
> They have until tomorrow, just so you know.
> 
> So has the suit been "thrown out"?  No effin way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has already thrown out one suit after each side was asked for a respomse. Trump and his supporters are the cheaters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Man, you must have a huge ass hole, because you are pulling all sorts of stuff out of it.
Click to expand...


You use your ass hole to do your thinking,


----------



## iceberg

Indeependent said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> The case in the OP has nothing to do with other cases, of course you know that, but deflection seems to be all you have. STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> Well hi, Poser! I see your dumb ass is still Trolling me again over your stupid ploy I didn't fall for. You're the fucking dumbass who posted your DD 214 as a challenge to prove you heap big brave warrior &  so you could display like a fucking peacock, an award you received.  That is the epitome of a *poser* and just one of many reasons why I use that moniker to peg your dumb ass for so long. All along I refused to display my DD 214, and instead posted my VA Benefits letter as proof of MY SEA/Nam deployments as agreed. And your dumb ass dismissed that as non-proof because it wasn't a DD 214...fucking bullshitter!
> 
> As far as the single item on topic, ALL of the cases have a common thread, notwithstanding your bullshit of trying to decouple them, one from another; Trump & Co. trying to put their collective thumbs on the scale. Tough shit Tex...you don't want to see it because you're just a fucking puppet. So piss off now Lil' Tex. You're the one making a fool of himself with your childish behavior in your 70's. TaTa *Poser*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well punk, first of all I'm not in my 70s and there in nothing in the TX suit that alleges any fraud. It simply points out States not following their own State laws, violations of due process and violations of the Constitution.
> 
> If you didn't spend so much time lying and deflecting you might be able to keep up. LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are providing no evidence. This is a rehash of the same arguments that have been thrown out in state and federal courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know the case they are presenting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is just rehashed cow manure that has been rejected by state and federal courts. In these states, there is plenty of cow manure they can use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked...Do you know the case they are presenting?
> You responded...No.
> 
> Now go look up the case they are presenting; it should only take a few minutes.
Click to expand...

we're talking about a guy that is confused by "separation of powers".

give him a few days. minimum.


----------



## busybee01

Rogue AI said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.
> 
> Now show me where these states followed their process.
> 
> You can't, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.
> 
> Ahiw me one case where Trump won.
> 
> You can’t, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Texas lawsuit is trash. It will dismissed out of hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from a dipwad who's already proven that he knows nothing whatsoever about the Texas lawsuit, this means . . . exactly as much as every other post you make, which is nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Texas wins the case, will all states who made voting rules changes without their legislature doing it have their EC votes voided, or just the ones listed in the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think this case would just cover the listed defendants, however any state that violated the constitution in this regard would be in jeopardy after the precedent was set.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas extended early voting without any input from the legislature. There goes those 38 EC votes for Trump down the drain.  Changes were made the same way across the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a red herring as it pertains to in person voting. Nobody has challenged that, and many states did the same. This is about absentee ballots, verification (or lack thereof), and items that do not accommodate emergency measures like social distancing. Powers granted to governors are not granted to all executive branches such as election officials unless specified by the legislature or state Constitution.
Click to expand...


Election officials can interpret the laws that are passed by the state just as federal agencies interpret laws passed by the federal government..


----------



## Rogue AI

busybee01 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mascale said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Texas matter has no litigated findings on which to rely.
> 
> "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
> (For a real sniff of foreign intervention: See Deut 23: 19-20, about the gouging and screwing that Moses likely learned as kid--from Acts 7 a household art and skill of Pharaoh!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there is, Bush v. Gore is one precedent that said votes within a State can not be treated differently. GA treated mail in ballots differently than in person voting. Some counties in PA allowed voters to fix their defective ballots, while others didn't. That's just two of the due process arguments being made by TX.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference. Voters who vote in person can seek assistance in voting. That may not be ne cessarily true with mail in ballots. No equal protection case here.
Click to expand...

That's one of the primary issues. States already legislated the standards for absentee ballots. Election officials ignored the law in some states and allowed poll workers to correct otherwise ineligible ballots. The process is arbitrary which gives cause for an equal protection suit.


----------



## busybee01

JimBowie1958 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, the complaint establishes through precedent in _Anderson v. Celebrezze_ and in _Mass. v. EPA_ that Texas has standing to bring the action against other states as original actions in the SCOTUS.
> So far, all these internet, night-shift lawyers have failed to rebut that very sound LEGAL argument supporting Texas having standing, which these night-shift internet lawyers originally asserted but have suddenly abandoned for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the Texas suit has solid case law behind it, so if this were a perfect world, it is a slam dunk.
> 
> The question is, will the five conservative justices have the courage to enforce the letter of the law here, acknowledge the law and then weasel out, or just toss it out without comment as so many cowardly judges have done already, except for ONE DEMOCRAT judge who had the courage to say the PA case had merit, then the hacks on the PASC yanked the case away before the honest judge could here any evidence.
Click to expand...


What you want6 is a judicial colup. There is no basis for overturning a election. It was 1 REPUBLICAN judge who was overruled by a higher court.


----------



## mascale

Rogue Al poster appears to have no names of officials on which to rely, photo ID's, addresses, or other usual evidence.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(People Pray for this to happen: Matt 25: 14-30!)


----------



## iceberg

mascale said:


> Rogue Al poster appears to have no names of officials on which to rely, photo ID's, addresses, or other usual evidence.
> 
> "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
> (People Pray for this to happen: Matt 25: 14-30!)


none you'd understand anyway. he told me yesterday he ran out of crayons, elmers glue and glitter.

fraid you're on your own from here.


----------



## mascale

Per Elections Clause, and Federalist 59:  Texas has no Constitutional basis to interfere in all the elections of other states.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(People Pray for this to happen: Matt 25: 14-30!)


----------



## Rogue AI

mascale said:


> Rogue Al poster appears to have no names of officials on which to rely, photo ID's, addresses, or other usual evidence.
> 
> "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
> (People Pray for this to happen: Matt 25: 14-30!)


Do you expect me to pilfer their wallets for their IDs? What nonsense you spew.


----------



## mascale

No constitutional arrest civil liberties are supported by Rogue Al, illiterate poster--who now even claims that Rogue Al knows none of them personally.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(People Pray for this to happen: Matt 25: 14-30!)


----------



## iceberg

mascale said:


> No constitutional arrest civil liberties are supported by Rogue Al, illiterate poster--who now even claims that Rogue Al knows none of them personally.
> 
> "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
> (People Pray for this to happen: Matt 25: 14-30!)


dude - is this like speaking in 3rd person via a 2nd party?


----------



## Rogue AI

mascale said:


> Per Elections Clause, and Federalist 59:  Texas has no Constitutional basis to interfere in all the elections of other states.
> 
> "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
> (People Pray for this to happen: Matt 25: 14-30!)


You overly rely on the importance of the Federalist papers. The correspondences are limited to only a handful of signatories and vary widely to the actual text of the Constitution in which this case will be judged.


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can apply equal protection when your state has been given affirmative action.
> 
> You have a state which gets 1.2 EC votes for every million citizens, arguing equal protection with a state which gets 1.8 EC votes for every million citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, spare us with the false equivalency bullshit.  "We don't have to follow the law, because we don't have the pure mob rule democracy that we want!!!"
> 
> The operative part of the phrase "equal protection under the law" is actually "UNDER THE LAW".  The law - in this case, the US Constitution - says that election laws are set by state legislatures.  Not by the governor, not by the state Supreme Court, not by the Secretary of State.  If a state's election was being governed by arbitrary decisions made by those other people, rather than by the laws passed by the state legislature, then that is a violation of the US Constitution.
> 
> And there's no amount of whining that "Well, the whole election is not fair, because it isn't done the way I think it should be!!!" that's going to change that fact, or be worth a taco fart in a wind tunnel to anyone here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State legislatures include the Governor. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret state constitutions. State officials also have the right to interpret laws. If that interpretation conflicts with the legislature then the legislature can pass a propos3ed law subject to approval of the Governor.
Click to expand...


No, they don't, no more than the US Congress includes the President.  The state Supreme Court has the job of APPLYING the state Constitution.  Do not give me this leftist "I really hope you fall for it" bullshit about "they were just interpreting the law when they decided that the deadline was three days later."  There's no interpretation involved in fucking numbers.


----------



## mascale

Iceberg poster doesn't know any of the election officials either, posted:  And Rogue Al has no concept of the opinions of Scalia, Thomas, now likely Barrett and how they infer Constitutional Intent--along with Roberts and the Liberals, and the lesser known.

The Federalist Papers are Founding Famous Articles.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(People Pray for this to happen: Matt 25: 14-30!)


----------



## Skylar

AZrailwhale said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.
> 
> So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.
> 
> So where is the violation?
> 
> 
> 
> Gee..you are so "sharp" I'm surprised you can't figure this out...*not really.*
> 
> Texas won't be ruling on the election violations of other states. The Supreme Court will.
> If five states are allowed to pervert election law then the entire body of laws that rule and govern our
> national elections are nuked and Texas has a right to protect the laws that govern them as well as every other state in the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who determines if election laws of a given state were correctly implemented? The respective state courts.
> 
> Texas has no say in any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the end SCOTUS does.  See Bush V Gore.  The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gore, SCOTUS overturned the lower court ruling.
Click to expand...


Bush V. Gore wasn't a ruling about one state suing another. It involved the actual candidates. 

Texas isn't a candidate. It isn't anyone involved in any of the laws in question. It has no standing.


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't follow their "constitutional process," numskull.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their constitution process is controlled by the courts of their state.  Not by the courts of another state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will never understand why leftists think, "If I sound like I'm just too stupid to understand, it will be a brilliant debate tactic!"
> 
> The Constitution primarily in question here is the US Constitution.  Maybe you've heard of it.  It states, very clearly, that state election law is set by the state legislature, not by any other state government entity.  To the extent that state government entities may have violated their own state Constitution in regards to election law, that would also be a violation of the US Constitution.
> 
> For the record, though, the state supreme court does not "control" the state constitution, either.  That's also controlled by the state legislatures, and the people they represent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State judges have the right to interpret the state constitution. Legislatures cannot violate state constitutions.
Click to expand...


Horseshit. Pure, unmitigated horseshit.  State judges have a right to APPLY the law.  They do not have the right to say, "This deadline should be three days later than it actually says on the paper, because I think that would be nice."  That is not "interpreting" anything, no matter what your math teacher said when she got tired of trying to get you to understand arithmetic.

And is your position really, "The judges can decide the state Constitution is something different than what it says, but by God, those legislatures - who actually write the Constitution - better not get any funny ideas!"?

Far be it from me to try to stop you from saying asinine things in public that make people laugh at you like the school bully who just pissed his pants; but as a little friendly advice, anytime your mouth is moving where people might hear the sounds coming out . . . it's a really bad idea.


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri is now in as well.
> 
> So that would now be Texas,  Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Missouri filing suit against the four Dumbass states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri joins 'fight' alongside Texas to challenge election before Supreme Court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dumbass states are the ones filing this idiotic suit that will be thrown out just like the rest of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court has already ordered the cheating states to respond to the Texas' suit.
> They have until tomorrow, just so you know.
> 
> So has the suit been "thrown out"?  No effin way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has already thrown out one suit after each side was asked for a respomse. Trump and his supporters are the cheaters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Man, you must have a huge ass hole, because you are pulling all sorts of stuff out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You use your ass hole to do your thinking,
Click to expand...


And you ARE an asshole, who does no thinking whatsoever.


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.
> 
> Now show me where these states followed their process.
> 
> You can't, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.
> 
> Ahiw me one case where Trump won.
> 
> You can’t, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Texas lawsuit is trash. It will dismissed out of hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from a dipwad who's already proven that he knows nothing whatsoever about the Texas lawsuit, this means . . . exactly as much as every other post you make, which is nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Texas wins the case, will all states who made voting rules changes without their legislature doing it have their EC votes voided, or just the ones listed in the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think this case would just cover the listed defendants, however any state that violated the constitution in this regard would be in jeopardy after the precedent was set.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas extended early voting without any input from the legislature. There goes those 38 EC votes for Trump down the drain.  Changes were made the same way across the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a red herring as it pertains to in person voting. Nobody has challenged that, and many states did the same. This is about absentee ballots, verification (or lack thereof), and items that do not accommodate emergency measures like social distancing. Powers granted to governors are not granted to all executive branches such as election officials unless specified by the legislature or state Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Election officials can interpret the laws that are passed by the state just as federal agencies interpret laws passed by the federal government..
Click to expand...


Again:  there is no "interpretation" involved in deadlines.  Dates and numbers are not fuzzy grey areas to anyone who isn't as stupid as you are, and those people shouldn't be in charge.


----------



## BlindBoo

Cecilie1200 said:


> The argument actually IS that the US Constitution says that the state legislatures - and no one else - will decide the state election laws.





iceberg said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can apply equal protection when your state has been given affirmative action.
> 
> You have a state which gets 1.2 EC votes for every million citizens, arguing equal protection with a state which gets 1.8 EC votes for every million citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, spare us with the false equivalency bullshit.  "We don't have to follow the law, because we don't have the pure mob rule democracy that we want!!!"
> 
> The operative part of the phrase "equal protection under the law" is actually "UNDER THE LAW".  The law - in this case, the US Constitution - says that election laws are set by state legislatures.  Not by the governor, not by the state Supreme Court, not by the Secretary of State.  If a state's election was being governed by arbitrary decisions made by those other people, rather than by the laws passed by the state legislature, then that is a violation of the US Constitution.
> 
> And there's no amount of whining that "Well, the whole election is not fair, because it isn't done the way I think it should be!!!" that's going to change that fact, or be worth a taco fart in a wind tunnel to anyone here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State legislatures include the Governor. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret state constitutions. State officials also have the right to interpret laws. If that interpretation conflicts with the legislature then the legislature can pass a propos3ed law subject to approval of the Governor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the legislative branch includes the executive?
> 
> that's some funny assed shit right there.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures. 

The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials






						Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
					

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars



					constitutioncenter.org
				




Also the Gov. of Texas was sued by the Texas legislature for the same type of changes to the Texas election process.  They lost too.


----------



## Cecilie1200

So now we have 17 states joining with Texas.   Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.


----------



## Toro




----------



## Skylar

Cecilie1200 said:


> So now we have 17 states joining with Texas.   Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.



They're not parties to the suit. Though they are definitely supporting at least some parts of Texas' effort.

If only their support magically granted Texas standing, it might be of some relevance.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now we have 17 states joining with Texas.   Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not parties to the suit. Though they are definitely supporting Texas' effort.
> 
> If only their support magically granted Texas standing, it might be of some relevance.
Click to expand...


Well, thank you SOOOO much for carefully disputing a point I didn't make.  I'm so very glad you took the time to inform me that they weren't parties to the suit, given that I didn't say they were.

If only your constant chanting of, "Texas doesn't have standing, because . . . I don't want it to!!!" magically created reality, it might be of some relevance, as well.

How's about you join the rest of us in recognizing that you're a dumbass, and pipe the fuck down until the courts decide whether or not Texas has standing?


----------



## JLW

Toro said:


> View attachment 427146


The lawsuit is a farce. The whole purpose of the Texas  law suit is to rile up the  Trump base with lies. Not to win.  Get them angry. Get them crazed. It will make the Trumpist lemmings  all the more easy to manipulate by their masters in the future.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Faun said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social media is full of Trombies claiming that THIS IS IT! This is the lawsuit that overturns the election.
> 
> It is also full of Trombies congratulating themselves for not rioting and burning down cities in response to the election...”like the libs did”.
> 
> I feel a collision coming.
> 
> 
> 
> And when this one fails them, it will be the next one that will do it for them.
Click to expand...


Like so many “Pepe The Frogs” hopping from one failed lily pad to the next.


----------



## Skylar

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now we have 17 states joining with Texas.   Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not parties to the suit. Though they are definitely supporting Texas' effort.
> 
> If only their support magically granted Texas standing, it might be of some relevance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, thank you SOOOO much for carefully disputing a point I didn't make.  I'm so very glad you took the time to inform me that they weren't parties to the suit, given that I didn't say they were.
> 
> If only your constant chanting of, "Texas doesn't have standing, because . . . I don't want it to!!!" magically created reality, it might be of some relevance, as well.
> 
> How's about you join the rest of us in recognizing that you're a dumbass, and pipe the fuck down until the courts decide whether or not Texas has standing?
Click to expand...


Texas is disputing the election laws and practices of OTHER states.  They have no jurisdiction nor standing. The election laws are a closed loop, made, adjudicated and implemented within the State itself.

The only state the Texas AG has any say over elections....is Texas. *The suit is such pseudo-legal gibberish, that the Texas Solicitor General who represents Texas before the Supreme Court, didn't sign it.*

I'm hardly the first or only person to notice laughably obvious hole in their legal reasoning.



> Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine, wrote on his popular legal blog that the suit was “utter garbage” and also disputed the idea that Texas had standing, noting that “it has no say over how other states choose electors.”



Or.....



> Paul Smith, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who has argued voting rights cases at the Supreme Court, said the case was “wacko.”
> 
> .....The professor added that Texas could run into trouble in proving that it has grounds to sue, known in legal terms as “standing.”
> 
> “It’s totally unprecedented, the idea that one state would, at the Supreme Court, claim that other states’ votes were cast in the wrong way — that’s never happened,” he said. “What is the injury to the state of Texas because Pennsylvania’s votes were cast for Mr. Biden instead of Mr. Trump? There is no connection there.”



Or....



> University of Texas Law Professor *Steve Vladeck* led the charge of those who called this a “dangerous” stunt that has no prospect of being heard by the Supreme Court.




Or.....



> “Texas here is asking the Supreme Court for permission to sue Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin over how those other states conducted their own elections,” he said. “This is the dumbest case any lawyer has ever seen, and the Supreme Court won’t touch it. Really, this is the craziest case of them all. Unbelievable.”
> “It’s just unbelievable to any sane, normal person who understands the structure of our constitutional system and how it functions,” he added.



Or.....



> Laurence Tribe, legal scholar and professor at Harvard Law School, also suggested that Texas may not have standing to bring the case and therefore the court may decide not to hear it.
> "This is truly ridiculous," Tribe said. "If the 50 sister States could sue one another to overturn each other's election results, there'd be a mind-blowing cascade of at least 50! (ie 50 x 49 x 48 x ... x3 x2) intra-family Electoral College megasuits. Endless!"


----------



## Toro

Johnlaw said:


> The lawsuit is a farce. The whole purpose of the Texas  law suit is to rile up the  Trump base with lies. Not to win.  Get them angry. Get them crazed. It will make the Trumpist lemmings  all the more easy to manipulate by their masters in the future.



Yeah, this Texas AG is a real piece of work.  He's had several people who resigned - and I mean last week - who wrote a letter to the authorities that he should be charged for all sorts of things, i.e. bribery, etc.

What are the odds that this douchebag is doing this to create political cover to protect his corrupt hide?


----------



## Toro

Cecilie1200 said:


> How's about you join the rest of us in recognizing that you're a dumbass, and pipe the fuck down until the courts decide whether or not Texas has standing?



Given that your retarded side is 1-54 in the courts thus far, I wouldn't be putting too many chips down on SCOTUS ruling in your favor.  
But you will, because cult.


----------



## busybee01

Cecilie1200 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> Did the states bypass their own constitution and laws to change voting laws?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. Do you have any examples from the lawsuit that you think are relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the argument seems to be that the state constitution has rules for "absentee ballots", and they sought to create a new class of balloting not defined in the constitution
> 
> So the state legislature created a new type of ballot, called a "mail-in" ballot, under rules the state legislature enacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They created it after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking moron, Pennsylvania used mail-in ballots in their primary election in accordance with the new law. Republicans had their opportunity then to challenge the constitutionality of that law if it were really a problem for them. They don't get to sit on that position and wait to see if they win or lose an election, and then attempt to disenfranchise 2.6 million voters because they lost the election over a law that was constitutional when the election was held and the voters followed the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you don't contest the constitutionality of some law by some arbitrary deadline that Dims have defined, then you can never contest it?  What about Plessy vs. Fergusen?  How long after the segregation laws were passed was that law contested?
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> Dim fraud has disenfranchised 74 million voters, douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are trying to disenfranchise 80 million voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, YOU are, by insisting that the election be decided by tainted election procedures.
Click to expand...


You are falsely claiming that the election was tainted when multiple judges disagree with you.


----------



## busybee01

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bad argument to attempt. A monority of voters elected this president in 2016. Were voters in the more populous states disenfranchised?
> 
> 
> 
> Every voter in every election whose candidate does not win is "disenfranchised" if that's how you wish to
> look at things. The question is was an election fairly contested? Or not?
> 
> We know for absolutely certain the 2020 presidential election was as dirty and corrupt as can be.
> And the aftermath has been corrupt too. Appeals to lower and state courts have been summarily rejected
> out of hand.
> The solution when lower courts refuse to honestly deal with things (ignoring Dominion and ballot fraud)  is to take it to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tbhe federal courts have rejected them as well. That includes judges appointed by Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. The Supreme Court has done it's job when the lower state and federal courts refused to do theirs
> because they know no one is going to hold them accountable.
> 
> Disgusting but it's just what we saw in Gore v Bush in 2000. In the second Trump term I would like to see
> some accountability from these petty autocrats in robes.
> 
> Anyone who can say he sees no evidence of fraud after being informed about Dominion needs to be
> removed from office and lose any pensions or remunerations due.
Click to expand...


There is going to be no second Trump term. Dominion is just some crazy right wing nutjob conspiracy hoax.


----------



## Skylar

Toro said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lawsuit is a farce. The whole purpose of the Texas  law suit is to rile up the  Trump base with lies. Not to win.  Get them angry. Get them crazed. It will make the Trumpist lemmings  all the more easy to manipulate by their masters in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, this Texas AG is a real piece of work.  He's had several people who resigned - and I mean last week - who wrote a letter to the authorities that he should be charged for all sorts of things, i.e. bribery, etc.
> 
> What are the odds that this douchebag is doing this to create political cover to protect his corrupt hide?
Click to expand...


Paxton, who is currently under indictment for federal felonies and under FBI investigation for several more, is looking to trade some useless political theater for pre-emptive pardons.

The suit is such a steam pile of pseudo-legal bullshit* that the Texas Solicitor General, the person who represents Texas before the Supreme Court, didn't sign it.*


----------



## busybee01

Indeependent said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> The case in the OP has nothing to do with other cases, of course you know that, but deflection seems to be all you have. STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> Well hi, Poser! I see your dumb ass is still Trolling me again over your stupid ploy I didn't fall for. You're the fucking dumbass who posted your DD 214 as a challenge to prove you heap big brave warrior &  so you could display like a fucking peacock, an award you received.  That is the epitome of a *poser* and just one of many reasons why I use that moniker to peg your dumb ass for so long. All along I refused to display my DD 214, and instead posted my VA Benefits letter as proof of MY SEA/Nam deployments as agreed. And your dumb ass dismissed that as non-proof because it wasn't a DD 214...fucking bullshitter!
> 
> As far as the single item on topic, ALL of the cases have a common thread, notwithstanding your bullshit of trying to decouple them, one from another; Trump & Co. trying to put their collective thumbs on the scale. Tough shit Tex...you don't want to see it because you're just a fucking puppet. So piss off now Lil' Tex. You're the one making a fool of himself with your childish behavior in your 70's. TaTa *Poser*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well punk, first of all I'm not in my 70s and there in nothing in the TX suit that alleges any fraud. It simply points out States not following their own State laws, violations of due process and violations of the Constitution.
> 
> If you didn't spend so much time lying and deflecting you might be able to keep up. LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are providing no evidence. This is a rehash of the same arguments that have been thrown out in state and federal courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know the case they are presenting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is just rehashed cow manure that has been rejected by state and federal courts. In these states, there is plenty of cow manure they can use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked...Do you know the case they are presenting?
> You responded...No.
> 
> Now go look up the case they are presenting; it should only take a few minutes.
Click to expand...


The case is going nowhere.


----------



## Skylar

busybee01 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bad argument to attempt. A monority of voters elected this president in 2016. Were voters in the more populous states disenfranchised?
> 
> 
> 
> Every voter in every election whose candidate does not win is "disenfranchised" if that's how you wish to
> look at things. The question is was an election fairly contested? Or not?
> 
> We know for absolutely certain the 2020 presidential election was as dirty and corrupt as can be.
> And the aftermath has been corrupt too. Appeals to lower and state courts have been summarily rejected
> out of hand.
> The solution when lower courts refuse to honestly deal with things (ignoring Dominion and ballot fraud)  is to take it to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tbhe federal courts have rejected them as well. That includes judges appointed by Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. The Supreme Court has done it's job when the lower state and federal courts refused to do theirs
> because they know no one is going to hold them accountable.
> 
> Disgusting but it's just what we saw in Gore v Bush in 2000. In the second Trump term I would like to see
> some accountability from these petty autocrats in robes.
> 
> Anyone who can say he sees no evidence of fraud after being informed about Dominion needs to be
> removed from office and lose any pensions or remunerations due.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is going to be no second Trump term. Dominion is just some crazy right wing nutjob conspiracy hoax.
Click to expand...


The dominion conspiracy is double stupid.

First, there's nothing to support it. So belief in the dominion batshit is just pure, unrefined dipshittery.

Second, its been demonstrably disproven. If Dominion voting machines were changing votes, then physical paper ballot (with the votes written right on it for the voter to review) would be wildly different than the electronic vote tallies.

Georgia hand counted the physical ballots. *The hand recount of the physical ballots matched the electronic tallies with WAY more than 99% accuracy. *

Obliterating this silly turd of a conspiracy.


----------



## busybee01

iceberg said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can apply equal protection when your state has been given affirmative action.
> 
> You have a state which gets 1.2 EC votes for every million citizens, arguing equal protection with a state which gets 1.8 EC votes for every million citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, spare us with the false equivalency bullshit.  "We don't have to follow the law, because we don't have the pure mob rule democracy that we want!!!"
> 
> The operative part of the phrase "equal protection under the law" is actually "UNDER THE LAW".  The law - in this case, the US Constitution - says that election laws are set by state legislatures.  Not by the governor, not by the state Supreme Court, not by the Secretary of State.  If a state's election was being governed by arbitrary decisions made by those other people, rather than by the laws passed by the state legislature, then that is a violation of the US Constitution.
> 
> And there's no amount of whining that "Well, the whole election is not fair, because it isn't done the way I think it should be!!!" that's going to change that fact, or be worth a taco fart in a wind tunnel to anyone here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State legislatures include the Governor. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret state constitutions. State officials also have the right to interpret laws. If that interpretation conflicts with the legislature then the legislature can pass a propos3ed law subject to approval of the Governor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the legislative branch includes the executive?
> 
> that's some funny assed shit right there.
Click to expand...


So you think the legislature can make laws all by themselves?


----------



## Faun

busybee01 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> Did the states bypass their own constitution and laws to change voting laws?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. Do you have any examples from the lawsuit that you think are relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the argument seems to be that the state constitution has rules for "absentee ballots", and they sought to create a new class of balloting not defined in the constitution
> 
> So the state legislature created a new type of ballot, called a "mail-in" ballot, under rules the state legislature enacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They created it after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking moron, Pennsylvania used mail-in ballots in their primary election in accordance with the new law. Republicans had their opportunity then to challenge the constitutionality of that law if it were really a problem for them. They don't get to sit on that position and wait to see if they win or lose an election, and then attempt to disenfranchise 2.6 million voters because they lost the election over a law that was constitutional when the election was held and the voters followed the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you don't contest the constitutionality of some law by some arbitrary deadline that Dims have defined, then you can never contest it?  What about Plessy vs. Fergusen?  How long after the segregation laws were passed was that law contested?
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> Dim fraud has disenfranchised 74 million voters, douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are trying to disenfranchise 80 million voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, YOU are, by insisting that the election be decided by tainted election procedures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are falsely claiming that the election was tainted when multiple judges disagree with you.
Click to expand...

Not just multiple judges -- every judge. Some even appointed by Trump.

And not just judges, but Trump's own Director of CISA, who Trump fired after he stated there was no evidence of vote flipping.

And not just judges and CISA, but Trump's own Attorney General, who said they had not yet seen widespread fraud capable of overturning the election.

And not just judges, CISA and the Department of Justice, but me too.


----------



## busybee01

Cecilie1200 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can apply equal protection when your state has been given affirmative action.
> 
> You have a state which gets 1.2 EC votes for every million citizens, arguing equal protection with a state which gets 1.8 EC votes for every million citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, spare us with the false equivalency bullshit.  "We don't have to follow the law, because we don't have the pure mob rule democracy that we want!!!"
> 
> The operative part of the phrase "equal protection under the law" is actually "UNDER THE LAW".  The law - in this case, the US Constitution - says that election laws are set by state legislatures.  Not by the governor, not by the state Supreme Court, not by the Secretary of State.  If a state's election was being governed by arbitrary decisions made by those other people, rather than by the laws passed by the state legislature, then that is a violation of the US Constitution.
> 
> And there's no amount of whining that "Well, the whole election is not fair, because it isn't done the way I think it should be!!!" that's going to change that fact, or be worth a taco fart in a wind tunnel to anyone here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State legislatures include the Governor. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret state constitutions. State officials also have the right to interpret laws. If that interpretation conflicts with the legislature then the legislature can pass a propos3ed law subject to approval of the Governor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't, no more than the US Congress includes the President.  The state Supreme Court has the job of APPLYING the state Constitution.  Do not give me this leftist "I really hope you fall for it" bullshit about "they were just interpreting the law when they decided that the deadline was three days later."  There's no interpretation involved in fucking numbers.
Click to expand...


You have no clue what is in the Pennsylvania state constitution.


----------



## Skylar

busybee01 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> The case in the OP has nothing to do with other cases, of course you know that, but deflection seems to be all you have. STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> Well hi, Poser! I see your dumb ass is still Trolling me again over your stupid ploy I didn't fall for. You're the fucking dumbass who posted your DD 214 as a challenge to prove you heap big brave warrior &  so you could display like a fucking peacock, an award you received.  That is the epitome of a *poser* and just one of many reasons why I use that moniker to peg your dumb ass for so long. All along I refused to display my DD 214, and instead posted my VA Benefits letter as proof of MY SEA/Nam deployments as agreed. And your dumb ass dismissed that as non-proof because it wasn't a DD 214...fucking bullshitter!
> 
> As far as the single item on topic, ALL of the cases have a common thread, notwithstanding your bullshit of trying to decouple them, one from another; Trump & Co. trying to put their collective thumbs on the scale. Tough shit Tex...you don't want to see it because you're just a fucking puppet. So piss off now Lil' Tex. You're the one making a fool of himself with your childish behavior in your 70's. TaTa *Poser*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well punk, first of all I'm not in my 70s and there in nothing in the TX suit that alleges any fraud. It simply points out States not following their own State laws, violations of due process and violations of the Constitution.
> 
> If you didn't spend so much time lying and deflecting you might be able to keep up. LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are providing no evidence. This is a rehash of the same arguments that have been thrown out in state and federal courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know the case they are presenting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is just rehashed cow manure that has been rejected by state and federal courts. In these states, there is plenty of cow manure they can use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked...Do you know the case they are presenting?
> You responded...No.
> 
> Now go look up the case they are presenting; it should only take a few minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The case is going nowhere.
Click to expand...


Its theater for dipshits.

And Paxton's hail mary to get a pre-emptive pardon for the federal crimes he's currently under indictment for as well as the OTHER felonies that he's under investigation for by the FBI. The suit is such a steaming pile of pseudo-legal horseshit, that the Texas Solicitor General wouldn't sign it.

Texas doesn't even have standing in the issues they're seeking to litigate.


----------



## busybee01

Cecilie1200 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri is now in as well.
> 
> So that would now be Texas,  Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Missouri filing suit against the four Dumbass states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri joins 'fight' alongside Texas to challenge election before Supreme Court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dumbass states are the ones filing this idiotic suit that will be thrown out just like the rest of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court has already ordered the cheating states to respond to the Texas' suit.
> They have until tomorrow, just so you know.
> 
> So has the suit been "thrown out"?  No effin way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has already thrown out one suit after each side was asked for a respomse. Trump and his supporters are the cheaters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Man, you must have a huge ass hole, because you are pulling all sorts of stuff out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You use your ass hole to do your thinking,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you ARE an asshole, who does no thinking whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Your idea of thinking is parroting Trump.


----------



## Faun

Skylar said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bad argument to attempt. A monority of voters elected this president in 2016. Were voters in the more populous states disenfranchised?
> 
> 
> 
> Every voter in every election whose candidate does not win is "disenfranchised" if that's how you wish to
> look at things. The question is was an election fairly contested? Or not?
> 
> We know for absolutely certain the 2020 presidential election was as dirty and corrupt as can be.
> And the aftermath has been corrupt too. Appeals to lower and state courts have been summarily rejected
> out of hand.
> The solution when lower courts refuse to honestly deal with things (ignoring Dominion and ballot fraud)  is to take it to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tbhe federal courts have rejected them as well. That includes judges appointed by Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. The Supreme Court has done it's job when the lower state and federal courts refused to do theirs
> because they know no one is going to hold them accountable.
> 
> Disgusting but it's just what we saw in Gore v Bush in 2000. In the second Trump term I would like to see
> some accountability from these petty autocrats in robes.
> 
> Anyone who can say he sees no evidence of fraud after being informed about Dominion needs to be
> removed from office and lose any pensions or remunerations due.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is going to be no second Trump term. Dominion is just some crazy right wing nutjob conspiracy hoax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dominion conspiracy is double stupid.
> 
> First, there's nothing to support it. So belief in the dominion batshit is just pure, unrefined dipshittery.
> 
> Second, its been demonstrably disproven. If Dominion voting machines were changing votes, then physical paper ballot (with the votes written right on it for the voter to review) would be wildly different than the electronic vote tallies.
> 
> Georgia hand counted the physical ballots. *The hand recount of the physical ballots matched the electronic tallies with WAY more than 99% accuracy. *
> 
> Obliterating this silly turd of a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Even worse, if there was a problem with Dominion, why did Team Trump lie about it and conflate it with Smartmatic, which actually has nothing to do with Dominion?


----------



## Skylar

Faun said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> Did the states bypass their own constitution and laws to change voting laws?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. Do you have any examples from the lawsuit that you think are relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the argument seems to be that the state constitution has rules for "absentee ballots", and they sought to create a new class of balloting not defined in the constitution
> 
> So the state legislature created a new type of ballot, called a "mail-in" ballot, under rules the state legislature enacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They created it after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking moron, Pennsylvania used mail-in ballots in their primary election in accordance with the new law. Republicans had their opportunity then to challenge the constitutionality of that law if it were really a problem for them. They don't get to sit on that position and wait to see if they win or lose an election, and then attempt to disenfranchise 2.6 million voters because they lost the election over a law that was constitutional when the election was held and the voters followed the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you don't contest the constitutionality of some law by some arbitrary deadline that Dims have defined, then you can never contest it?  What about Plessy vs. Fergusen?  How long after the segregation laws were passed was that law contested?
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> Dim fraud has disenfranchised 74 million voters, douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are trying to disenfranchise 80 million voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, YOU are, by insisting that the election be decided by tainted election procedures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are falsely claiming that the election was tainted when multiple judges disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not just multiple judges -- every judge. Some even appointed by Trump.
> 
> And not just judges, but Trump's own Director of CISA, who Trump fired after he stated there was no evidence of vote flipping.
> 
> And not just judges and CISA, but Trump's own Attorney General, who said they had not yet seen widespread fraud capable of overturning the election.
> 
> And not just judges, CISA and the Department of Justice, but me too.
Click to expand...


Its that last one that sold it for me!


----------



## busybee01

Cecilie1200 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.
> 
> Now show me where these states followed their process.
> 
> You can't, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.
> 
> Ahiw me one case where Trump won.
> 
> You can’t, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Texas lawsuit is trash. It will dismissed out of hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from a dipwad who's already proven that he knows nothing whatsoever about the Texas lawsuit, this means . . . exactly as much as every other post you make, which is nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Texas wins the case, will all states who made voting rules changes without their legislature doing it have their EC votes voided, or just the ones listed in the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think this case would just cover the listed defendants, however any state that violated the constitution in this regard would be in jeopardy after the precedent was set.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas extended early voting without any input from the legislature. There goes those 38 EC votes for Trump down the drain.  Changes were made the same way across the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a red herring as it pertains to in person voting. Nobody has challenged that, and many states did the same. This is about absentee ballots, verification (or lack thereof), and items that do not accommodate emergency measures like social distancing. Powers granted to governors are not granted to all executive branches such as election officials unless specified by the legislature or state Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Election officials can interpret the laws that are passed by the state just as federal agencies interpret laws passed by the federal government..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again:  there is no "interpretation" involved in deadlines.  Dates and numbers are not fuzzy grey areas to anyone who isn't as stupid as you are, and those people shouldn't be in charge.
Click to expand...


You do not know what is in the state constitution.


----------



## DrLove

Thunk said:


> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> Texas Case Challenges Election Directly at Supreme Court
> 
> "Texas brought a suit against four states that did something they cannot do: they violated the U.S. Constitution in their conduct of the presidential election. And this violation occurred regardless of the amount of election fraud that may have resulted. The four defendant states are Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
> 
> Texas filed the suit directly in the Supreme Court. Article III of the Constitution lists a small number of categories of cases in which the Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction.”
> 
> The Texas suit is clear, and it presents a compelling case. The four offending states each violated the U.S. Constitution in two ways.
> 
> First, they violated the Electors Clause of Article II of the Constitution when executive or judicial officials in the states changed the rules of the election without going through the state legislatures. The Electors Clause requires that each State “shall appoint” its presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”
> 
> Thus, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended by three days the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots, contrary to the law passed by the state legislature, the state court changed the rules in violation of the Electors Clause. Similarly, when Georgia’s Secretary of State responded to a lawsuit by entering into a Compromise Settlement Agreement and Release (i.e. a consent decree) with the Democratic Party of Georgia, and modified the signature verification requirements spelled out by Georgia law, that changing of the rules violated the Electors Clause."
> 
> 
> *Importantly, the Texas lawsuit presents a pure question of law.  It is not dependent upon disputed facts.  Although these unconstitutional changes to the election rules could have facilitated voter fraud, the State of Texas doesn’t need to prove a single case of fraud to win. It is enough that the four states violated the Constitution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kobach: Texas Case Challenges Election Directly at Supreme Court
> 
> 
> On Monday, just before midnight, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit at the Supreme Court that is the most important election challenge yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com



I fucking LIVE to read Kobach on Breitbart!


----------



## Thunk

17 states join the #TexasLawSuit.


 MO, AL, AR, FL, NE, ND, OK, IN, KS, LA, MS, MT, SC, SD, TN, UT & WV. 

Now AZ just joined in


----------



## Skylar

Faun said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bad argument to attempt. A monority of voters elected this president in 2016. Were voters in the more populous states disenfranchised?
> 
> 
> 
> Every voter in every election whose candidate does not win is "disenfranchised" if that's how you wish to
> look at things. The question is was an election fairly contested? Or not?
> 
> We know for absolutely certain the 2020 presidential election was as dirty and corrupt as can be.
> And the aftermath has been corrupt too. Appeals to lower and state courts have been summarily rejected
> out of hand.
> The solution when lower courts refuse to honestly deal with things (ignoring Dominion and ballot fraud)  is to take it to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tbhe federal courts have rejected them as well. That includes judges appointed by Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. The Supreme Court has done it's job when the lower state and federal courts refused to do theirs
> because they know no one is going to hold them accountable.
> 
> Disgusting but it's just what we saw in Gore v Bush in 2000. In the second Trump term I would like to see
> some accountability from these petty autocrats in robes.
> 
> Anyone who can say he sees no evidence of fraud after being informed about Dominion needs to be
> removed from office and lose any pensions or remunerations due.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is going to be no second Trump term. Dominion is just some crazy right wing nutjob conspiracy hoax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dominion conspiracy is double stupid.
> 
> First, there's nothing to support it. So belief in the dominion batshit is just pure, unrefined dipshittery.
> 
> Second, its been demonstrably disproven. If Dominion voting machines were changing votes, then physical paper ballot (with the votes written right on it for the voter to review) would be wildly different than the electronic vote tallies.
> 
> Georgia hand counted the physical ballots. *The hand recount of the physical ballots matched the electronic tallies with WAY more than 99% accuracy. *
> 
> Obliterating this silly turd of a conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even worse, if there was a problem with Dominion, why did Team Trump lie about it and conflate it with Smartmatic, which actually has nothing to do with Dominion?
Click to expand...


Because they're making this shit up as they go along and know that their target audience are hapless dipshits that will believe anything they say?


----------



## busybee01

Cecilie1200 said:


> So now we have 17 states joining with Texas.   Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.



The Hilbilly states of America.


----------



## iceberg

busybee01 said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can apply equal protection when your state has been given affirmative action.
> 
> You have a state which gets 1.2 EC votes for every million citizens, arguing equal protection with a state which gets 1.8 EC votes for every million citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, spare us with the false equivalency bullshit.  "We don't have to follow the law, because we don't have the pure mob rule democracy that we want!!!"
> 
> The operative part of the phrase "equal protection under the law" is actually "UNDER THE LAW".  The law - in this case, the US Constitution - says that election laws are set by state legislatures.  Not by the governor, not by the state Supreme Court, not by the Secretary of State.  If a state's election was being governed by arbitrary decisions made by those other people, rather than by the laws passed by the state legislature, then that is a violation of the US Constitution.
> 
> And there's no amount of whining that "Well, the whole election is not fair, because it isn't done the way I think it should be!!!" that's going to change that fact, or be worth a taco fart in a wind tunnel to anyone here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State legislatures include the Governor. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret state constitutions. State officials also have the right to interpret laws. If that interpretation conflicts with the legislature then the legislature can pass a propos3ed law subject to approval of the Governor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the legislative branch includes the executive?
> 
> that's some funny assed shit right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think the legislature can make laws all by themselves?
Click to expand...

Bwahahahahahahaha


----------



## Thunk

danielpalos said:


> Texas has no standing



Yes they do.


----------



## Indeependent

busybee01 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now we have 17 states joining with Texas.   Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hilbilly states of America.
Click to expand...

The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Indeependent said:


> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.


And that is a GOOD thing, trust me.


----------



## Indeependent

JimBowie1958 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> 
> 
> And that is a GOOD thing, trust me.
Click to expand...

All the sophisticated people I know want to live with the hillbillys when they retire.


----------



## Skylar

Indeependent said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> 
> 
> And that is a GOOD thing, trust me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the sophisticated people I know want to live with the hillbillys when they retire.
Click to expand...


Or, with each other as they slowly shift States Blue.

Ask Texas, Georgia and Arizona.


----------



## Indeependent

Skylar said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> 
> 
> And that is a GOOD thing, trust me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the sophisticated people I know want to live with the hillbillys when they retire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or, with each other as they slowly shift States Blue.
> 
> Ask Texas, Georgia and Arizona.
Click to expand...

That's what happens when Liberals are afraid of the Blue War Zone they created and they flee to Safe States.
Of course, these Liberals are still Mentally Ill and turn the Safe State into yet another Blue War Zone.


----------



## DrLove

BULLDOG said:


> This political stunt is nothing more than a desperate effort from right wing politicians to show Trump they still support him. Nobody expects it to have any effect on anything.



No it’s about more than blind obedience. TX AG is about to have his bond revoked & he needs a pardon.

Most of all it’s about grift. Donnie is over 230 million at present.


----------



## Skylar

Indeependent said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> 
> 
> And that is a GOOD thing, trust me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the sophisticated people I know want to live with the hillbillys when they retire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or, with each other as they slowly shift States Blue.
> 
> Ask Texas, Georgia and Arizona.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what happens when Liberals are afraid of the Blue War Zone they created and they flee to Safe States.
> Of course, these Liberals are still Mentally Ill and turn the Safe State into yet another Blue War Zone.
Click to expand...


Or they sell their homes from States with high property values for tons of money and move to States with low property values and live large.

Its a similar situation for ex-pats moving to say, Mexico.


----------



## Coyote

Faun said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bad argument to attempt. A monority of voters elected this president in 2016. Were voters in the more populous states disenfranchised?
> 
> 
> 
> Every voter in every election whose candidate does not win is "disenfranchised" if that's how you wish to
> look at things. The question is was an election fairly contested? Or not?
> 
> We know for absolutely certain the 2020 presidential election was as dirty and corrupt as can be.
> And the aftermath has been corrupt too. Appeals to lower and state courts have been summarily rejected
> out of hand.
> The solution when lower courts refuse to honestly deal with things (ignoring Dominion and ballot fraud)  is to take it to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tbhe federal courts have rejected them as well. That includes judges appointed by Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. The Supreme Court has done it's job when the lower state and federal courts refused to do theirs
> because they know no one is going to hold them accountable.
> 
> Disgusting but it's just what we saw in Gore v Bush in 2000. In the second Trump term I would like to see
> some accountability from these petty autocrats in robes.
> 
> Anyone who can say he sees no evidence of fraud after being informed about Dominion needs to be
> removed from office and lose any pensions or remunerations due.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is going to be no second Trump term. Dominion is just some crazy right wing nutjob conspiracy hoax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dominion conspiracy is double stupid.
> 
> First, there's nothing to support it. So belief in the dominion batshit is just pure, unrefined dipshittery.
> 
> Second, its been demonstrably disproven. If Dominion voting machines were changing votes, then physical paper ballot (with the votes written right on it for the voter to review) would be wildly different than the electronic vote tallies.
> 
> Georgia hand counted the physical ballots. *The hand recount of the physical ballots matched the electronic tallies with WAY more than 99% accuracy. *
> 
> Obliterating this silly turd of a conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even worse, if there was a problem with Dominion, why did Team Trump lie about it and conflate it with Smartmatic, which actually has nothing to do with Dominion?
Click to expand...


Because they know their followers will believe whatever they are told, they can't accept that more people wanted him gone the wanted him to stay, just as they can't understand that not everyone liked his POLICIES and think it's all about Trump bad.


----------



## Indeependent

Skylar said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> 
> 
> And that is a GOOD thing, trust me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the sophisticated people I know want to live with the hillbillys when they retire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or, with each other as they slowly shift States Blue.
> 
> Ask Texas, Georgia and Arizona.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what happens when Liberals are afraid of the Blue War Zone they created and they flee to Safe States.
> Of course, these Liberals are still Mentally Ill and turn the Safe State into yet another Blue War Zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or they sell their homes from States with high property values for tons of money and move to States with low property values and live large.
> 
> Its a similar situation for ex-pats moving to say, Mexico.
Click to expand...

An an example, retired Nassau County residents are making a killing by selling to some New York City folks and moving out of state.
I am sure these NYC Bleeding Hearts will turn Nassau County into a high crime area over the next few years.


----------



## Indeependent

Coyote said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bad argument to attempt. A monority of voters elected this president in 2016. Were voters in the more populous states disenfranchised?
> 
> 
> 
> Every voter in every election whose candidate does not win is "disenfranchised" if that's how you wish to
> look at things. The question is was an election fairly contested? Or not?
> 
> We know for absolutely certain the 2020 presidential election was as dirty and corrupt as can be.
> And the aftermath has been corrupt too. Appeals to lower and state courts have been summarily rejected
> out of hand.
> The solution when lower courts refuse to honestly deal with things (ignoring Dominion and ballot fraud)  is to take it to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tbhe federal courts have rejected them as well. That includes judges appointed by Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. The Supreme Court has done it's job when the lower state and federal courts refused to do theirs
> because they know no one is going to hold them accountable.
> 
> Disgusting but it's just what we saw in Gore v Bush in 2000. In the second Trump term I would like to see
> some accountability from these petty autocrats in robes.
> 
> Anyone who can say he sees no evidence of fraud after being informed about Dominion needs to be
> removed from office and lose any pensions or remunerations due.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is going to be no second Trump term. Dominion is just some crazy right wing nutjob conspiracy hoax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dominion conspiracy is double stupid.
> 
> First, there's nothing to support it. So belief in the dominion batshit is just pure, unrefined dipshittery.
> 
> Second, its been demonstrably disproven. If Dominion voting machines were changing votes, then physical paper ballot (with the votes written right on it for the voter to review) would be wildly different than the electronic vote tallies.
> 
> Georgia hand counted the physical ballots. *The hand recount of the physical ballots matched the electronic tallies with WAY more than 99% accuracy. *
> 
> Obliterating this silly turd of a conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even worse, if there was a problem with Dominion, why did Team Trump lie about it and conflate it with Smartmatic, which actually has nothing to do with Dominion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they know their followers will believe whatever they are told, they can't accept that more people wanted him gone the wanted him to stay, just as they can't understand that not everyone liked his POLICIES and think it's all about Trump bad.
Click to expand...

Show me a politician whose policies are approved by 100% of their constituents.


----------



## Leo123

Coyote said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bad argument to attempt. A monority of voters elected this president in 2016. Were voters in the more populous states disenfranchised?
> 
> 
> 
> Every voter in every election whose candidate does not win is "disenfranchised" if that's how you wish to
> look at things. The question is was an election fairly contested? Or not?
> 
> We know for absolutely certain the 2020 presidential election was as dirty and corrupt as can be.
> And the aftermath has been corrupt too. Appeals to lower and state courts have been summarily rejected
> out of hand.
> The solution when lower courts refuse to honestly deal with things (ignoring Dominion and ballot fraud)  is to take it to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tbhe federal courts have rejected them as well. That includes judges appointed by Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. The Supreme Court has done it's job when the lower state and federal courts refused to do theirs
> because they know no one is going to hold them accountable.
> 
> Disgusting but it's just what we saw in Gore v Bush in 2000. In the second Trump term I would like to see
> some accountability from these petty autocrats in robes.
> 
> Anyone who can say he sees no evidence of fraud after being informed about Dominion needs to be
> removed from office and lose any pensions or remunerations due.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is going to be no second Trump term. Dominion is just some crazy right wing nutjob conspiracy hoax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dominion conspiracy is double stupid.
> 
> First, there's nothing to support it. So belief in the dominion batshit is just pure, unrefined dipshittery.
> 
> Second, its been demonstrably disproven. If Dominion voting machines were changing votes, then physical paper ballot (with the votes written right on it for the voter to review) would be wildly different than the electronic vote tallies.
> 
> Georgia hand counted the physical ballots. *The hand recount of the physical ballots matched the electronic tallies with WAY more than 99% accuracy. *
> 
> Obliterating this silly turd of a conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even worse, if there was a problem with Dominion, why did Team Trump lie about it and conflate it with Smartmatic, which actually has nothing to do with Dominion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they know their followers will believe whatever they are told, they can't accept that more people wanted him gone the wanted him to stay, just as they can't understand that not everyone liked his POLICIES and think it's all about Trump bad.
Click to expand...

What policy did you not like?


----------



## Jim H - VA USA

Skylar said:


> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
Click to expand...

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim


----------



## Skylar

Indeependent said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> 
> 
> And that is a GOOD thing, trust me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the sophisticated people I know want to live with the hillbillys when they retire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or, with each other as they slowly shift States Blue.
> 
> Ask Texas, Georgia and Arizona.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what happens when Liberals are afraid of the Blue War Zone they created and they flee to Safe States.
> Of course, these Liberals are still Mentally Ill and turn the Safe State into yet another Blue War Zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or they sell their homes from States with high property values for tons of money and move to States with low property values and live large.
> 
> Its a similar situation for ex-pats moving to say, Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An an example, retired Nassau County residents are making a killing by selling to some New York City folks and moving out of state.
> I am sure these NYC Bleeding Hearts will turn Nassau County into a high crime area over the next few years.
Click to expand...


People are moving from say, Marin County California or King County, Washington....with very low crime rates but _spectacular _home values to live in places like.....New Braunfels Texas, or Forsythe County Georgia, or Tuscon Arizona. 

Where property values are much, much lower. Using the same trick that ex-pats moving to Mexico use everyday, where they can live like kings.

And help shift Red States to Blue ones. Georgia and Arizona......with Texas not far behind.


----------



## BULLDOG

Rogue AI said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.
> 
> Now show me where these states followed their process.
> 
> You can't, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.
> 
> Ahiw me one case where Trump won.
> 
> You can’t, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Texas lawsuit is trash. It will dismissed out of hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from a dipwad who's already proven that he knows nothing whatsoever about the Texas lawsuit, this means . . . exactly as much as every other post you make, which is nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Texas wins the case, will all states who made voting rules changes without their legislature doing it have their EC votes voided, or just the ones listed in the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think this case would just cover the listed defendants, however any state that violated the constitution in this regard would be in jeopardy after the precedent was set.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas extended early voting without any input from the legislature. There goes those 38 EC votes for Trump down the drain.  Changes were made the same way across the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a red herring as it pertains to in person voting. Nobody has challenged that, and many states did the same. This is about absentee ballots, verification (or lack thereof), and items that do not accommodate emergency measures like social distancing. Powers granted to governors are not granted to all executive branches such as election officials unless specified by the legislature or state Constitution.
Click to expand...


Please post the law or constitutional clause that makes the distinction you mention.


----------



## Indeependent

Leo123 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bad argument to attempt. A monority of voters elected this president in 2016. Were voters in the more populous states disenfranchised?
> 
> 
> 
> Every voter in every election whose candidate does not win is "disenfranchised" if that's how you wish to
> look at things. The question is was an election fairly contested? Or not?
> 
> We know for absolutely certain the 2020 presidential election was as dirty and corrupt as can be.
> And the aftermath has been corrupt too. Appeals to lower and state courts have been summarily rejected
> out of hand.
> The solution when lower courts refuse to honestly deal with things (ignoring Dominion and ballot fraud)  is to take it to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tbhe federal courts have rejected them as well. That includes judges appointed by Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. The Supreme Court has done it's job when the lower state and federal courts refused to do theirs
> because they know no one is going to hold them accountable.
> 
> Disgusting but it's just what we saw in Gore v Bush in 2000. In the second Trump term I would like to see
> some accountability from these petty autocrats in robes.
> 
> Anyone who can say he sees no evidence of fraud after being informed about Dominion needs to be
> removed from office and lose any pensions or remunerations due.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is going to be no second Trump term. Dominion is just some crazy right wing nutjob conspiracy hoax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dominion conspiracy is double stupid.
> 
> First, there's nothing to support it. So belief in the dominion batshit is just pure, unrefined dipshittery.
> 
> Second, its been demonstrably disproven. If Dominion voting machines were changing votes, then physical paper ballot (with the votes written right on it for the voter to review) would be wildly different than the electronic vote tallies.
> 
> Georgia hand counted the physical ballots. *The hand recount of the physical ballots matched the electronic tallies with WAY more than 99% accuracy. *
> 
> Obliterating this silly turd of a conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even worse, if there was a problem with Dominion, why did Team Trump lie about it and conflate it with Smartmatic, which actually has nothing to do with Dominion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they know their followers will believe whatever they are told, they can't accept that more people wanted him gone the wanted him to stay, just as they can't understand that not everyone liked his POLICIES and think it's all about Trump bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What policy did you not like?
Click to expand...

Oh, c'mon!
You know she's not that bright and is going to post, "All of them".
I doubt she knows anything specific.
I bet this post gets deleted...


----------



## DrLove

Roudy said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doc7505 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Don’t Mess with Texas!
> Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures*
> *Texas goes directly to the Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to order these swing states with voting irregularities to allow their legislatures to appoint presidential electors.*​
> Don't Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures | The Stream
> 8 Dec 2020 ~~ By Al Perrotta
> ~[snip]~
> 
> Just before midnight, the State of Texas threw its massive weight into the election fraud fight. Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds their ad-hoc changes to election procedures were unconstitutional. And as a result, violated the rights of Texans and those in other states that followed the constitution. Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
> What’s more, Texas isn’t fiddling around with lower courts. They marched straight to the Supreme Court. And they are requesting the Supreme Court order the offending states to allow their legislatures to appoint their presidential electors.
> *Dodging State Legislatures Was Dodgy*
> Breitbart was the first major outlet with the story, and breaks down the argument the Lone Star State is making.
> Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.​In their lawsuit, Texas claims “certain officials in the Defendant States” presented the COVID pandemic “as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in balloting.” As streiff at RedState noted, “there’s no pandemic escape hatch in the constitution.”
> ~[snip]~
> *Going to the Supreme Court…a Long Shot, Perhaps*
> Texas approached the Supreme Court directly, Breitbart reports, “because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.”
> Is the Supreme Court going to hear the case? Twitchy has collected the early reaction of legal types, and the consensus seems to be it’s a long shot the Supreme Court will hear the case, let alone rule in Texas’ favor. Several commentators note that the suit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, not the state’s solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who would be the go-to person for suits like this.
> 
> 
> Comment:
> The  Roberts court will either determine that it's none of Texas' business how other states do stuff or that the legistlatures were in session and aware of the changes and did not act, therefore they are implicitly the method determined by the legislature to be appropriate and so once again, buzz of Texas.
> This case doesn’t require evidence, it hangs upon the law being changed illegally, before the election.
> Every American voter in is being disenfranchised in this National Election by the States who were grossly negligent in their duties to conduct a free and fair election.
> All States, who abided by their State Election Rules, should join with Texas and take the scoundrels to court.
> 
> 
> 
> Big Texas Dick slams down on the table.
> 
> Everybody else knows what's at stake:
> https://tnm.me/news/tnm-news/major-announcement-texit-legislation-filed-for-next-legislative-session
> This is a not-so-veiled threat.
> 
> The SCOTUS ordered a response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent of a fly pattern at the end of the fourth quarter.   You can tell from today's SCOTUS ruling that they're not going to step in this shit.  I place the blame on Trump's campaign advisors, they should have seen this coming a mile away and preempted it.  We had a seriously defective candidate in Joe Biden hiding in the basement..this was a concerted effort at stealing this election across many states, the Democrats had placed their foot soldiers in various Democrat run cities and states and were preparing or should I say conspiring for this fraud for over 6 months, including how to cover their tracks.  You gotta hand it to them they basically carried out an "Ocean's 11" of US elections.
Click to expand...


I think AntiFa done it!!


----------



## Skylar

Jim H - VA USA said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
Click to expand...


The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'. 

State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.


----------



## Faun

Jim H - VA USA said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
Click to expand...

Which rules were changed illegally?


----------



## bripat9643

busybee01 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to. Not unless there's a reason for SCOTUS to take up this case with someone who has nothing to do with whether any other state acted in accordance with it's own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can another state force a state to follow it's own laws?
> 
> The DA has prosecutorial discretion in charging crimes.  So how can another state force them to prosecute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they can.  How about pollution laws where water pollution goes into states that are downstream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These states are directly affected by pollution. That is not true in elections. Also we are talking about federal ;laws not state laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  In other words, you are wrong.  Allowing wholesale fraud in your state cancels out the votes of people in every other state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No wholesale fraud happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your level of intelligence. Every judge has stated that Trump has provided no evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong as usual.
Click to expand...

NOT.


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
Click to expand...

You just stated a logical impossiblity.  How does one adjudicate "themselves?"


----------



## Indeependent

Skylar said:


> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
Click to expand...

So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.


----------



## BULLDOG

bripat9643 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas claims the  changes in the way the defendant states conducted the election did not come from those states legislatures. Isn't that the same thing as Texas Governor Abbot extending early voting without the state legislature?
> 
> 
> 
> If he did that, then yes it is.
Click to expand...










						Governor Abbott Extends Early Voting Period For November 3rd Election
					






					gov.texas.gov


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
Click to expand...

Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.


----------



## Skylar

Indeependent said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
Click to expand...


I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.

_I'm laughing at the audience._


----------



## DrLove

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Relax everyone, Ken Paxton is just trying to get a pardon....
> 
> Trump is a child so its practically that easy to get a pardon from him.....



Pax needs a pardon - Quickly!


----------



## Indeependent

Skylar said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
Click to expand...

Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just stated a logical impossiblity.  How does one adjudicate "themselves?"
Click to expand...


*How does a State court adjudicate State laws?* Using what's called 'jurisdiction' and the 'judicial power' granted by their respective state constitutions.

You see it exercised every day in State court when State laws are adjudicated. In fact, State law is the generally the only thing that State courts can adjudicate.

Remember, you have no idea what's going on or how any of this works.


----------



## conserveguy877

I don't care if this results get delayed half a month, a year, or 4 more years. There's still the legal process. In President Trump's case.  Look at so much evidence to reverse these illegal results.


----------



## Skylar

Indeependent said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
Click to expand...


I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.

_I'm laughing at the audience._


----------



## Indeependent

Skylar said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
Click to expand...

So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.


----------



## Skylar

conserveguy877 said:


> I don't care if this results get delayed half a month, a year, or 4 more years. There's still the legal process. In President Trump's case.  Look at so much evidence to reverse these illegal results.



What 'illegal results?

I don't think 'illegal' means what you think it means. Though you did get the 'results' part right. As the election is well and thoroughly over.

It has been since about November 7th.


----------



## Skylar

Indeependent said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.

Plus, the gloating after.


----------



## Indeependent

Skylar said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.
> 
> Plus, the gloating after.
Click to expand...

Fine...I'm sure that after Biden destroys all those new businesses in Black areas, you will help pay their bills.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.
Click to expand...

Nope, nothing illegal about them.


----------



## Skylar

Indeependent said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.
> 
> Plus, the gloating after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine...I'm sure that after Biden destroys all those new businesses in Black areas, you will help pay their bills.
Click to expand...


Biden should probably be paying some bills to you.....as he's living rent free in your head.


----------



## Indeependent

Skylar said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.
> 
> Plus, the gloating after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine...I'm sure that after Biden destroys all those new businesses in Black areas, you will help pay their bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden should probably be paying some bills to you.....as he's living rent free in your head.
Click to expand...

I have to admit that I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
You tell me.


----------



## Turtlesoup

DrLove said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course - Texas has every right to change election laws in all 57 states because, you know ... TEXAS!
> Good lord, when will Republicans stop embarrassing themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will make them pay for it?
> 
> Their voters?? Nope...
> 
> They are embarrassing themselves for their voters....
> 
> and when this is said and done, I guarantee you that these folks will get pissed if you ever remind them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you would prefer the people nationwide to pay for those States' "right" to defraud the the rest of the rest the United States. Voting fraud affects *all* Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allegations of fraud with no evidence shouldn't affect any Americans....
> 
> We are weeks now of the allegations of fraud... Where is the evidence... Evidence that will stand up in court...
> 
> Where is it?
> 
> No messages of 'it is coming' or 'it is everywhere'... Accusing people of a crime and having no evidence is a crime in itself...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are as sick of this as I am and the judges are. That idiot AG in Texas now claims 80 million fraudulent votes with no evidence. They pull this crap out of their ass and expect people to enjoy the scent. It's beyond ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Sweety-------------Texas had their better IT guys inspect the Dominion system before the election throughly and reject allowing it in TEXAS because they found that the system was basically meant to create FRAUD----------

TEXAS IT guys understand the system and how it was used to CHEAT.............

Even my lib brother who happens to be the director of computer it department for one of the colleges is  saying Biden is fucked.


----------



## Skylar

Indeependent said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.
> 
> Plus, the gloating after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine...I'm sure that after Biden destroys all those new businesses in Black areas, you will help pay their bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden should probably be paying some bills to you.....as he's living rent free in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to admit that I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
> Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
> You tell me.
Click to expand...


Or....perhaps silly attempts at insults are all you have left as you abandon the topic of the thread.

You stick with your 'feelings'. I'll stick with mocking this steaming pseudo-legal turd of a lawsuit from Texas. And its intended audience.

Deal?


----------



## Indeependent

Skylar said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.
> 
> Plus, the gloating after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine...I'm sure that after Biden destroys all those new businesses in Black areas, you will help pay their bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden should probably be paying some bills to you.....as he's living rent free in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to admit that I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
> Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
> You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....perhaps silly attempts at insults are all you have left as you abandon the topic of the thread.
> 
> You stick with your 'feelings'. I'll stick with mocking this steaming pseudo-legal turd of a lawsuit from Texas. And its intended audience.
> 
> Deal?
Click to expand...

I deal with economic reality...every strata of America has done better under Trump than under any other President.
*You're* the one who claims you hate (a *feeling*) him and can't specify a reason.


----------



## DrLove

Turtlesoup said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course - Texas has every right to change election laws in all 57 states because, you know ... TEXAS!
> Good lord, when will Republicans stop embarrassing themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will make them pay for it?
> 
> Their voters?? Nope...
> 
> They are embarrassing themselves for their voters....
> 
> and when this is said and done, I guarantee you that these folks will get pissed if you ever remind them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you would prefer the people nationwide to pay for those States' "right" to defraud the the rest of the rest the United States. Voting fraud affects *all* Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allegations of fraud with no evidence shouldn't affect any Americans....
> 
> We are weeks now of the allegations of fraud... Where is the evidence... Evidence that will stand up in court...
> 
> Where is it?
> 
> No messages of 'it is coming' or 'it is everywhere'... Accusing people of a crime and having no evidence is a crime in itself...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are as sick of this as I am and the judges are. That idiot AG in Texas now claims 80 million fraudulent votes with no evidence. They pull this crap out of their ass and expect people to enjoy the scent. It's beyond ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sweety-------------Texas had their better IT guys inspect the Dominion system before the election throughly and reject allowing it in TEXAS because they found that the system was basically meant to create FRAUD----------
> 
> TEXAS IT guys understand the system and how it was used to CHEAT.............
> 
> Even my lib brother who happens to be the director of computer it department for one of the colleges is  saying Biden is fucked.
Click to expand...


Good luck widdat ... Ya Flamin TurtleTard!!


----------



## Skylar

Indeependent said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.
> 
> Plus, the gloating after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine...I'm sure that after Biden destroys all those new businesses in Black areas, you will help pay their bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden should probably be paying some bills to you.....as he's living rent free in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to admit that I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
> Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
> You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....perhaps silly attempts at insults are all you have left as you abandon the topic of the thread.
> 
> You stick with your 'feelings'. I'll stick with mocking this steaming pseudo-legal turd of a lawsuit from Texas. And its intended audience.
> 
> Deal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with economic reality...every strata of America has done better under Trump than under any other President.
> *You're* the one who claims you hate (a *feeling*) him and can't specify a reason.
Click to expand...


Or....you're trying to change the topic to your 'feelings' so you can flee from the topic of the thread.

No thank you. Your feelings I'll leave to you. Pointing out the numerous holes in the legal reasoning of the Texas suits you could drive truck through I'll leave to myself.

That and mocking its intended audience a little. That's more for fun.


----------



## Indeependent

Skylar said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.
> 
> Plus, the gloating after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine...I'm sure that after Biden destroys all those new businesses in Black areas, you will help pay their bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden should probably be paying some bills to you.....as he's living rent free in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to admit that I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
> Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
> You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....perhaps silly attempts at insults are all you have left as you abandon the topic of the thread.
> 
> You stick with your 'feelings'. I'll stick with mocking this steaming pseudo-legal turd of a lawsuit from Texas. And its intended audience.
> 
> Deal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with economic reality...every strata of America has done better under Trump than under any other President.
> *You're* the one who claims you hate (a *feeling*) him and can't specify a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....your'e trying to change the topic to your 'feelings' so you can flee from the topic of the thread.
> 
> No thank you. Your feelings I'll leave to you. Pointing out the numerous holes in the legal reasoning of the Texas suits you could drive truck through I'll leave to myself.
> 
> That and mocking its intended audience a little. That's more for fun.
Click to expand...


----------



## BULLDOG

Turtlesoup said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course - Texas has every right to change election laws in all 57 states because, you know ... TEXAS!
> Good lord, when will Republicans stop embarrassing themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will make them pay for it?
> 
> Their voters?? Nope...
> 
> They are embarrassing themselves for their voters....
> 
> and when this is said and done, I guarantee you that these folks will get pissed if you ever remind them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you would prefer the people nationwide to pay for those States' "right" to defraud the the rest of the rest the United States. Voting fraud affects *all* Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allegations of fraud with no evidence shouldn't affect any Americans....
> 
> We are weeks now of the allegations of fraud... Where is the evidence... Evidence that will stand up in court...
> 
> Where is it?
> 
> No messages of 'it is coming' or 'it is everywhere'... Accusing people of a crime and having no evidence is a crime in itself...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are as sick of this as I am and the judges are. That idiot AG in Texas now claims 80 million fraudulent votes with no evidence. They pull this crap out of their ass and expect people to enjoy the scent. It's beyond ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sweety-------------Texas had their better IT guys inspect the Dominion system before the election throughly and reject allowing it in TEXAS because they found that the system was basically meant to create FRAUD----------
> 
> TEXAS IT guys understand the system and how it was used to CHEAT.............
> 
> Even my lib brother who happens to be the director of computer it department for one of the colleges is  saying Biden is fucked.
Click to expand...


If those IT guys already inspected the software, it should be easy to present evidence of how votes were stolen. Just saying you think it was possible isn't enough. You gotta show evidence that it was.


----------



## Indeependent

Skylar said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.
> 
> Plus, the gloating after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine...I'm sure that after Biden destroys all those new businesses in Black areas, you will help pay their bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden should probably be paying some bills to you.....as he's living rent free in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to admit that I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
> Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
> You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....perhaps silly attempts at insults are all you have left as you abandon the topic of the thread.
> 
> You stick with your 'feelings'. I'll stick with mocking this steaming pseudo-legal turd of a lawsuit from Texas. And its intended audience.
> 
> Deal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with economic reality...every strata of America has done better under Trump than under any other President.
> *You're* the one who claims you hate (a *feeling*) him and can't specify a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....you're trying to change the topic to your 'feelings' so you can flee from the topic of the thread.
> 
> No thank you. Your feelings I'll leave to you. Pointing out the numerous holes in the legal reasoning of the Texas suits you could drive truck through I'll leave to myself.
> 
> That and mocking its intended audience a little. That's more for fun.
Click to expand...

Please stop trying to pass the "feelings" argument over to me.
The fact that you cannot perceive the *objective *economic cause/effect of Trumps policies, combined with your irrational hatred of him, means you possibly only care about how *you feel *despite objective observation.


----------



## Skylar

Indeependent said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.
> 
> Plus, the gloating after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine...I'm sure that after Biden destroys all those new businesses in Black areas, you will help pay their bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden should probably be paying some bills to you.....as he's living rent free in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to admit that I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
> Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
> You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....perhaps silly attempts at insults are all you have left as you abandon the topic of the thread.
> 
> You stick with your 'feelings'. I'll stick with mocking this steaming pseudo-legal turd of a lawsuit from Texas. And its intended audience.
> 
> Deal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with economic reality...every strata of America has done better under Trump than under any other President.
> *You're* the one who claims you hate (a *feeling*) him and can't specify a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....you're trying to change the topic to your 'feelings' so you can flee from the topic of the thread.
> 
> No thank you. Your feelings I'll leave to you. Pointing out the numerous holes in the legal reasoning of the Texas suits you could drive truck through I'll leave to myself.
> 
> That and mocking its intended audience a little. That's more for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please stop trying to pass the "feelings" argument over to me.
> The fact that you cannot perceive the *objective *economic cause/effect of Trumps policies, combined with your irrational hatred of him, means you possibly only care about how *you feel *despite objective observation.
Click to expand...


Uh-huh.



Indeependent said:


> I have to admit that *I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate* who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
> Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?



You feel your feelings. I'll stick with the topic of the thread.


----------



## Skylar

BlindBoo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument actually IS that the US Constitution says that the state legislatures - and no one else - will decide the state election laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can apply equal protection when your state has been given affirmative action.
> 
> You have a state which gets 1.2 EC votes for every million citizens, arguing equal protection with a state which gets 1.8 EC votes for every million citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, spare us with the false equivalency bullshit.  "We don't have to follow the law, because we don't have the pure mob rule democracy that we want!!!"
> 
> The operative part of the phrase "equal protection under the law" is actually "UNDER THE LAW".  The law - in this case, the US Constitution - says that election laws are set by state legislatures.  Not by the governor, not by the state Supreme Court, not by the Secretary of State.  If a state's election was being governed by arbitrary decisions made by those other people, rather than by the laws passed by the state legislature, then that is a violation of the US Constitution.
> 
> And there's no amount of whining that "Well, the whole election is not fair, because it isn't done the way I think it should be!!!" that's going to change that fact, or be worth a taco fart in a wind tunnel to anyone here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State legislatures include the Governor. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret state constitutions. State officials also have the right to interpret laws. If that interpretation conflicts with the legislature then the legislature can pass a propos3ed law subject to approval of the Governor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the legislative branch includes the executive?
> 
> that's some funny assed shit right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures.
> 
> The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
> 
> 
> Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars
> 
> 
> 
> constitutioncenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also the Gov. of Texas was sued by the Texas legislature for the same type of changes to the Texas election process.  They lost too.
Click to expand...


Also, these issues have already been adjudicated by the State courts. No violations of election law have been found.

State election laws, their adjudication and their implementation are a closed loop. They don't involve any other State.


----------



## j-mac

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please we have just had several years of Dems accusing every one who doesn't share their agenda with every crime misdemeanor and/or perversion they can think of without the first shred of evidence. Best expect the shoe to be on the other foot if Biden should actually manage to sleeze his way into office and for impeachment proceedings to commence immediately. Besides who are you to claim the evidence is invalid before it is even all presented? If those States have accepted illegal votes or deliberately encouraged illegal voting in a Federal election they have committed a crime against the Nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. So because you feel wronged over something completely different that affects this election how?
> 
> That fails basic logic. Sorry your feewings were hewt snowflake  but like...tough shit. You don't get to overturn an election based on your feelings.
> 
> As far as evidence...it's been over a month and about 60 court cases...when were you planning on presenting this "evidence"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is trying to "overturn" an election. A great many people believe that corrupt officials manipulated the count to put who they wanted in office rather than the candidate that actually got the most votes. Why would anyone who wants a fair and honest election mind people checking to make sure that it was? All this resistance only convinces people you have something to hide. It would be a very bad idea to go on with as many Americans as is current thinking that what is being attempted is a coup rather than an election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do you need to check?
> 
> How many recounts are needed?
> 
> The answer is as many as you need until Trump is selected no matter if the evidence does not support the claim Trump lost because of fraud!
> 
> Hell courts have rejected every case except one and that one was overturned...
> 
> So how many times must you be told Trump lost?
Click to expand...


Recounts are useless without audit.


----------



## Indeependent

Skylar said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.
> 
> Plus, the gloating after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine...I'm sure that after Biden destroys all those new businesses in Black areas, you will help pay their bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden should probably be paying some bills to you.....as he's living rent free in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to admit that I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
> Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
> You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....perhaps silly attempts at insults are all you have left as you abandon the topic of the thread.
> 
> You stick with your 'feelings'. I'll stick with mocking this steaming pseudo-legal turd of a lawsuit from Texas. And its intended audience.
> 
> Deal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with economic reality...every strata of America has done better under Trump than under any other President.
> *You're* the one who claims you hate (a *feeling*) him and can't specify a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....you're trying to change the topic to your 'feelings' so you can flee from the topic of the thread.
> 
> No thank you. Your feelings I'll leave to you. Pointing out the numerous holes in the legal reasoning of the Texas suits you could drive truck through I'll leave to myself.
> 
> That and mocking its intended audience a little. That's more for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please stop trying to pass the "feelings" argument over to me.
> The fact that you cannot perceive the *objective *economic cause/effect of Trumps policies, combined with your irrational hatred of him, means you possibly only care about how *you feel *despite objective observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to admit that *I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate* who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
> Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You feel your feelings. I'll stick with the topic of the thread.
Click to expand...

So no infrastructure improvements in your town?
New sidewalks?
New hydrants?
New waste pipes?
New traffic lights?
New Stop Signed?
New water pipes?
New malls?

If not, you're local politicians are pocketing the money Trump sent them to fix up your town.
Or you could live a very small town.


----------



## j-mac

BULLDOG said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course - Texas has every right to change election laws in all 57 states because, you know ... TEXAS!
> Good lord, when will Republicans stop embarrassing themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will make them pay for it?
> 
> Their voters?? Nope...
> 
> They are embarrassing themselves for their voters....
> 
> and when this is said and done, I guarantee you that these folks will get pissed if you ever remind them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you would prefer the people nationwide to pay for those States' "right" to defraud the the rest of the rest the United States. Voting fraud affects *all* Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allegations of fraud with no evidence shouldn't affect any Americans....
> 
> We are weeks now of the allegations of fraud... Where is the evidence... Evidence that will stand up in court...
> 
> Where is it?
> 
> No messages of 'it is coming' or 'it is everywhere'... Accusing people of a crime and having no evidence is a crime in itself...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are as sick of this as I am and the judges are. That idiot AG in Texas now claims 80 million fraudulent votes with no evidence. They pull this crap out of their ass and expect people to enjoy the scent. It's beyond ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sweety-------------Texas had their better IT guys inspect the Dominion system before the election throughly and reject allowing it in TEXAS because they found that the system was basically meant to create FRAUD----------
> 
> TEXAS IT guys understand the system and how it was used to CHEAT.............
> 
> Even my lib brother who happens to be the director of computer it department for one of the colleges is  saying Biden is fucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If those IT guys already inspected the software, it should be easy to present evidence of how votes were stolen. Just saying you think it was possible isn't enough. You gotta show evidence that it was.
Click to expand...


More to ignore right?


----------



## Indeependent

Skylar said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.
> 
> Plus, the gloating after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine...I'm sure that after Biden destroys all those new businesses in Black areas, you will help pay their bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden should probably be paying some bills to you.....as he's living rent free in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to admit that I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
> Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
> You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....perhaps silly attempts at insults are all you have left as you abandon the topic of the thread.
> 
> You stick with your 'feelings'. I'll stick with mocking this steaming pseudo-legal turd of a lawsuit from Texas. And its intended audience.
> 
> Deal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with economic reality...every strata of America has done better under Trump than under any other President.
> *You're* the one who claims you hate (a *feeling*) him and can't specify a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....you're trying to change the topic to your 'feelings' so you can flee from the topic of the thread.
> 
> No thank you. Your feelings I'll leave to you. Pointing out the numerous holes in the legal reasoning of the Texas suits you could drive truck through I'll leave to myself.
> 
> That and mocking its intended audience a little. That's more for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please stop trying to pass the "feelings" argument over to me.
> The fact that you cannot perceive the *objective *economic cause/effect of Trumps policies, combined with your irrational hatred of him, means you possibly only care about how *you feel *despite objective observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to admit that *I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate* who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
> Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You feel your feelings. I'll stick with the topic of the thread.
Click to expand...

It seems you spend a lot of time obsessing about something that you believe won't happen.
SCOTUS will not hear the case, so chill.
You're getting dull.


----------



## Skylar

Indeependent said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.
> 
> Plus, the gloating after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine...I'm sure that after Biden destroys all those new businesses in Black areas, you will help pay their bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden should probably be paying some bills to you.....as he's living rent free in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to admit that I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
> Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
> You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....perhaps silly attempts at insults are all you have left as you abandon the topic of the thread.
> 
> You stick with your 'feelings'. I'll stick with mocking this steaming pseudo-legal turd of a lawsuit from Texas. And its intended audience.
> 
> Deal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with economic reality...every strata of America has done better under Trump than under any other President.
> *You're* the one who claims you hate (a *feeling*) him and can't specify a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....you're trying to change the topic to your 'feelings' so you can flee from the topic of the thread.
> 
> No thank you. Your feelings I'll leave to you. Pointing out the numerous holes in the legal reasoning of the Texas suits you could drive truck through I'll leave to myself.
> 
> That and mocking its intended audience a little. That's more for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please stop trying to pass the "feelings" argument over to me.
> The fact that you cannot perceive the *objective *economic cause/effect of Trumps policies, combined with your irrational hatred of him, means you possibly only care about how *you feel *despite objective observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to admit that *I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate* who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
> Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You feel your feelings. I'll stick with the topic of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So no infrastructure improvements in your town?
> New sidewalks?
> New hydrants?
> New waste pipes?
> New traffic lights?
> New Stop Signed?
> New water pipes?
> New malls?
> 
> If not, you're local politicians are pocketing the money Trump sent them to fix up your town.
> Or you could live a very small town.
Click to expand...


Wow, you are just _dripping_ with desperation to change the topic of the thread. 

Nope. When you have something relevant to add to this thread, I'll be here.....shredding the pseudo-legal gibberish of the Texas suit. And laughing at its target audience.

Until then, enjoy feeling your feelings.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
Click to expand...

All the ones that were changed, moron.


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
Click to expand...

But you are being laughed at.


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you are being laughed at.
Click to expand...


Remember, the folks who disagree with me are from the same crowd that are still clinging to 'election fraud' conspiracies and gibbering batshit about 'dominion voting machines'.

So consider the source. I certainly do.


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just stated a logical impossiblity.  How does one adjudicate "themselves?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How does a State court adjudicate State laws?* Using what's called 'jurisdiction' and the 'judicial power' granted by their respective state constitutions.
> 
> You see it exercised every day in State court when State laws are adjudicated. In fact, State law is the generally the only thing that State courts can adjudicate.
> 
> Remember, you have no idea what's going on or how any of this works.
Click to expand...

This is a lawsuit between states, idiot.  What you're saying is that defense attorney can rule his client innocent.


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you are being laughed at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember, the folks who disagree with me are from the same crowd that are still clinging to 'election fraud' conspiracies and gibbering batshit about 'dominion voting machines'.
> 
> So consider the source. I certainly do.
Click to expand...

You mean the people who have the facts on their side?


----------



## j-mac

Lesh said:


> Jesus. Elections are a state matter. They are governed by THAT STATES laws and adjudicated by that states court system.
> 
> One state can not sue another state over how that state runs its elections.
> 
> This is beyond silly. I mean worthy of Rudy Toot Toot silly



Wrong...There is precident


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.


If you were right, which you never are, why is the Supreme Court demanding that these four states
respond back to the court tomorrow at about 1:00 pm (PST) to explain their actions and what they
were trying to do jury rigging their voting systems?
Like Jocelyn Benson (D) Secretary of State for Michigan, for instance: "Benson gave private activist organizations direct access to the state’s voter files, which should only be accessible to election clerks. She also violated a state law requiring signatures for absentee ballot requests by establishing online voter registration without statutory authority, and unilaterally decided — without legislative approval — to send absentee ballot request forms to every household in the state, without even checking to see whether the registered voters listed for each address had died or moved."

Michigan's actions give Biden voters advantages of course through illegal actions.
And that disenfranchises Texas, to a degree devaluing the individual voter in Texas. 
To claim no other states are involved is just asinine but, look who is making that point.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, nothing illegal about them.
Click to expand...

Where does the state law of Michigan allow mail-in voting?


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just stated a logical impossiblity.  How does one adjudicate "themselves?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How does a State court adjudicate State laws?* Using what's called 'jurisdiction' and the 'judicial power' granted by their respective state constitutions.
> 
> You see it exercised every day in State court when State laws are adjudicated. In fact, State law is the generally the only thing that State courts can adjudicate.
> 
> Remember, you have no idea what's going on or how any of this works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lawsuit between states, idiot.  What you're saying is that defense attorney can rule his client innocent.
Click to expand...


Laughing.....I'm saying that a State court can adjudicate State laws.

Which, of course, it can. And does every day.

*Texas doesn't get a say in another States laws. *Its the foundational flaw of this entire pseudo-legal turd of a suit filed by Texas. Texas doesn't have standing.


----------



## j-mac

Skylar said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.
> 
> Plus, the gloating after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine...I'm sure that after Biden destroys all those new businesses in Black areas, you will help pay their bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden should probably be paying some bills to you.....as he's living rent free in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to admit that I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
> Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
> You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....perhaps silly attempts at insults are all you have left as you abandon the topic of the thread.
> 
> You stick with your 'feelings'. I'll stick with mocking this steaming pseudo-legal turd of a lawsuit from Texas. And its intended audience.
> 
> Deal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with economic reality...every strata of America has done better under Trump than under any other President.
> *You're* the one who claims you hate (a *feeling*) him and can't specify a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....you're trying to change the topic to your 'feelings' so you can flee from the topic of the thread.
> 
> No thank you. Your feelings I'll leave to you. Pointing out the numerous holes in the legal reasoning of the Texas suits you could drive truck through I'll leave to myself.
> 
> That and mocking its intended audience a little. That's more for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please stop trying to pass the "feelings" argument over to me.
> The fact that you cannot perceive the *objective *economic cause/effect of Trumps policies, combined with your irrational hatred of him, means you possibly only care about how *you feel *despite objective observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to admit that *I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate* who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
> Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You feel your feelings. I'll stick with the topic of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So no infrastructure improvements in your town?
> New sidewalks?
> New hydrants?
> New waste pipes?
> New traffic lights?
> New Stop Signed?
> New water pipes?
> New malls?
> 
> If not, you're local politicians are pocketing the money Trump sent them to fix up your town.
> Or you could live a very small town.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you are just _dripping_ with desperation to change the topic of the thread.
> 
> Nope. When you have something relevant to add to this thread, I'll be here.....shredding the pseudo-legal gibberish of the Texas suit. And laughing at its target audience.
> 
> Until then, enjoy feeling your feelings.
Click to expand...

And what exactly are your credentials to label anything pseudo?


----------



## Indeependent

j-mac said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.
> 
> Plus, the gloating after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine...I'm sure that after Biden destroys all those new businesses in Black areas, you will help pay their bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden should probably be paying some bills to you.....as he's living rent free in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to admit that I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
> Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
> You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....perhaps silly attempts at insults are all you have left as you abandon the topic of the thread.
> 
> You stick with your 'feelings'. I'll stick with mocking this steaming pseudo-legal turd of a lawsuit from Texas. And its intended audience.
> 
> Deal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with economic reality...every strata of America has done better under Trump than under any other President.
> *You're* the one who claims you hate (a *feeling*) him and can't specify a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....you're trying to change the topic to your 'feelings' so you can flee from the topic of the thread.
> 
> No thank you. Your feelings I'll leave to you. Pointing out the numerous holes in the legal reasoning of the Texas suits you could drive truck through I'll leave to myself.
> 
> That and mocking its intended audience a little. That's more for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please stop trying to pass the "feelings" argument over to me.
> The fact that you cannot perceive the *objective *economic cause/effect of Trumps policies, combined with your irrational hatred of him, means you possibly only care about how *you feel *despite objective observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to admit that *I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate* who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
> Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You feel your feelings. I'll stick with the topic of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So no infrastructure improvements in your town?
> New sidewalks?
> New hydrants?
> New waste pipes?
> New traffic lights?
> New Stop Signed?
> New water pipes?
> New malls?
> 
> If not, you're local politicians are pocketing the money Trump sent them to fix up your town.
> Or you could live a very small town.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you are just _dripping_ with desperation to change the topic of the thread.
> 
> Nope. When you have something relevant to add to this thread, I'll be here.....shredding the pseudo-legal gibberish of the Texas suit. And laughing at its target audience.
> 
> Until then, enjoy feeling your feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what exactly are your credentials to label anything pseudo?
Click to expand...

He hates Trump; a Liberal does not need any other credential.


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just stated a logical impossiblity.  How does one adjudicate "themselves?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How does a State court adjudicate State laws?* Using what's called 'jurisdiction' and the 'judicial power' granted by their respective state constitutions.
> 
> You see it exercised every day in State court when State laws are adjudicated. In fact, State law is the generally the only thing that State courts can adjudicate.
> 
> Remember, you have no idea what's going on or how any of this works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lawsuit between states, idiot.  What you're saying is that defense attorney can rule his client innocent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing.....I'm saying that a State court can adjudicate State laws.
> 
> Which, of course, it can. And does every day.
> 
> *Texas doesn't get a say in another States laws. *Its the foundational flaw of this entire pseudo-legal turd of a suit filed by Texas. Texas doesn't have standing.
Click to expand...

This is a lawsuit between states, moron.  A state cannot adjudicate a lawsuit filed by another state.


----------



## Indeependent

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> 
> 
> If you were right, which you never are, why is the Supreme Court demanding that these four states
> respond back to the court tomorrow at about 1:00 pm (PST) to explain their actions and what they
> were trying to do jury rigging their voting systems?
> Like Jocelyn Benson (D) Secretary of State for Michigan, for instance: "Benson gave private activist organizations direct access to the state’s voter files, which should only be accessible to election clerks. She also violated a state law requiring signatures for absentee ballot requests by establishing online voter registration without statutory authority, and unilaterally decided — without legislative approval — to send absentee ballot request forms to every household in the state, without even checking to see whether the registered voters listed for each address had died or moved."
> 
> Michigan's actions give Biden voters advantages of course through illegal actions.
> And that disenfranchises Texas, to a degree devaluing the individual voter in Texas.
> To claim no other states are involved is just asinine but, look who is making that point.
Click to expand...

You are attempting to present facts to the mentally ill.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the ones that were changed, moron.
Click to expand...

Fucking moron, you already answered that post of mine with, _"Mail-in voting, for one, asshole."_ But you fail because there was nothing illegal about mail-in voting. So which other rules were illegally changed?


----------



## meaner gene

j-mac said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus. Elections are a state matter. They are governed by THAT STATES laws and adjudicated by that states court system.
> 
> One state can not sue another state over how that state runs its elections.
> 
> This is beyond silly. I mean worthy of Rudy Toot Toot silly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong...There is precident
Click to expand...

Let's see it.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you are being laughed at.
Click to expand...

While your candidate goes down in flames? The color of the sky in your world must be gray.


----------



## BluesLegend

bripat9643 said:


> Where does the state law of Michigan allow mail-in voting?



Dems give two shits about the law. What's funny though is the historical irony over Hillary telling Biden not to concede for any reason and now the left's conniption fit over Trump refusing to concede.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Indeependent said:


> You are attempting to present facts to the mentally ill.


Well there are rumors of Arizona, Kentucky, Ohio, Alaska and Wyoming also joining the lawsuit, and I bet N Carolina will as well.


----------



## Indeependent

JimBowie1958 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are attempting to present facts to the mentally ill.
> 
> 
> 
> Well there are rumors of Arizona, Kentucky, Ohio and Wyoming also joining the lawsuit, and I bet N Carolina will as well.
Click to expand...

I heard about Arizona.


----------



## JimBowie1958

BluesLegend said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the state law of Michigan allow mail-in voting?
> 
> 
> 
> Dems give two shits about the law. What's funny though is the historical irony over Hillary telling Biden not to concede for any reason and now the left's conniption fit over Trump refusing to concede.
Click to expand...

Democrats embrace their inner hypocrit.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Indeependent said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are attempting to present facts to the mentally ill.
> 
> 
> 
> Well there are rumors of Arizona, Kentucky, Ohio and Wyoming also joining the lawsuit, and I bet N Carolina will as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I heard about Arizona.
Click to expand...

I cant find an article though on any of them.

So rumors untill NewsMax confirms it I guess.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you are being laughed at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember, the folks who disagree with me are from the same crowd that are still clinging to 'election fraud' conspiracies and gibbering batshit about 'dominion voting machines'.
> 
> So consider the source. I certainly do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the people who have the facts on their side?
Click to expand...

LOLOLOLOL

You think you have facts on your side, do ya, fucking moron? Is that why none of this supposed "facts" can be proven in a court of law?


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the ones that were changed, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking moron, you already answered that post of mine with, _"Mail-in voting, for one, asshole."_ But you fail because there was nothing illegal about mail-in voting. So which other rules were illegally changed?
Click to expand...

It is illegal if it's not a law in the state, and unless the legislature voted to make it a law, then it's illegal.  The governor or state courts cannot change the law unilaterally.  What part of that don't you get?


----------



## j-mac

meaner gene said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus. Elections are a state matter. They are governed by THAT STATES laws and adjudicated by that states court system.
> 
> One state can not sue another state over how that state runs its elections.
> 
> This is beyond silly. I mean worthy of Rudy Toot Toot silly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong...There is precident
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see it.
Click to expand...


Look it up...I’m turning in...gotta work early...


----------



## Pogo

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
Click to expand...


Yuh huh.

And just HOW exactly is Texas "injured" by what the fuck some other state is doing?   Hm?

The reference Article II Section 1 Clause 2 reads, and we know it well by now:

>>  Each State shall appoint, *in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct*, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<

Read it again --- "in such Manner as the Legislature *thereof* may direct".  Not "in such Manner as the AG of Frickin' Texas may direct".

This clown should be disbarred.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you are being laughed at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember, the folks who disagree with me are from the same crowd that are still clinging to 'election fraud' conspiracies and gibbering batshit about 'dominion voting machines'.
> 
> So consider the source. I certainly do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the people who have the facts on their side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOLOL
> 
> You think you have facts on your side, do ya, fucking moron? Is that why none of this supposed "facts" can be proven in a court of law?
Click to expand...

Who said they can't?


----------



## JimBowie1958

bripat9643 said:


> Who said they can't?


Chicom News Network


----------



## dudmuck




----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you are being laughed at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While your candidate goes down in flames? The color of the sky in your world must be gray.
Click to expand...

A world where a criminal like Biden can swindle his way into the presidency is indeed a gray world.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, nothing illegal about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does the state law of Michigan allow mail-in voting?
Click to expand...

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??? 

* Section 168.759*


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just stated a logical impossiblity.  How does one adjudicate "themselves?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How does a State court adjudicate State laws?* Using what's called 'jurisdiction' and the 'judicial power' granted by their respective state constitutions.
> 
> You see it exercised every day in State court when State laws are adjudicated. In fact, State law is the generally the only thing that State courts can adjudicate.
> 
> Remember, you have no idea what's going on or how any of this works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lawsuit between states, idiot.  What you're saying is that defense attorney can rule his client innocent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing.....I'm saying that a State court can adjudicate State laws.
> 
> Which, of course, it can. And does every day.
> 
> *Texas doesn't get a say in another States laws. *Its the foundational flaw of this entire pseudo-legal turd of a suit filed by Texas. Texas doesn't have standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lawsuit between states, moron.  A state cannot adjudicate a lawsuit filed by another state.
Click to expand...

A state cannot tell another state how to conduct their elections. Nor is one state injured by another state's elections.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Skylar said:


> The dominion conspiracy is double stupid.
> 
> First, there's nothing to support it. So belief in the dominion batshit is just pure, unrefined dipshittery.


just a blatant bold lie which you seem to specialize in. Where has Dominion gone to if they are so pure
and non controversial? They've just shut down offices, scrubbed identities and declined to show up in
Pennsylvania for a little talk with officials there.








						Michigan Judge Allows Forensic Investigation Of Dominion Voting Machines
					

What will come of this...




					wbckfm.com
				




Feeling stupid yet? You have no conscience apparently you lie so much and so freely.



> Second, its been demonstrably disproven. If Dominion voting machines were changing votes, then physical paper ballot (with the votes written right on it for the voter to review) would be wildly different than the electronic vote tallies.
> 
> Georgia hand counted the physical ballots. *The hand recount of the physical ballots matched the electronic tallies with WAY more than 99% accuracy. *
> 
> Obliterating this silly turd of a conspiracy.


Dominion *weighs* ballots. It gives Biden votes more worth than Trump votes. In addition:








						Georgia voting irregularities: The curious case of Biden’s 20,000-vote surge - The Citizen
					

A curious thing happened as Fulton County, Ga., election officials counted mail-in ballots at Atlanta’s State Farm Arena in the days after the election. By PAUL SPERRY RealClearInvestigations [EDITOR’S NOTE: This …



					thecitizen.com
				




Why do you bother hanging around lying and bullshitting? Your little plan to steal the election
is in the middle of a collapse.  Thank you Texas. Thank you Supreme Court.
Thank you rabid stupid democrats.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the ones that were changed, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking moron, you already answered that post of mine with, _"Mail-in voting, for one, asshole."_ But you fail because there was nothing illegal about mail-in voting. So which other rules were illegally changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is illegal if it's not a law in the state, and unless the legislature voted to make it a law, then it's illegal.  The governor or state courts cannot change the law unilaterally.  What part of that don't you get?
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for you to present such an example.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Indeependent said:


> You are attempting to present facts to the mentally ill.


He really is a dumb fuck. His idiocy fascinates me.


----------



## Jim H - VA USA

Faun said:


> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
Click to expand...

In general, it was changes to mail-in voting procedures and/or signature requirements (depends upon the state).  I previously posted the lawsuit, which you can read for yourself.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you are being laughed at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember, the folks who disagree with me are from the same crowd that are still clinging to 'election fraud' conspiracies and gibbering batshit about 'dominion voting machines'.
> 
> So consider the source. I certainly do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the people who have the facts on their side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOLOL
> 
> You think you have facts on your side, do ya, fucking moron? Is that why none of this supposed "facts" can be proven in a court of law?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said they can't?
Click to expand...

LOLOLOL

They haven't. Are you telling me they can, they've just chosen not to???






Fucking moron, if they could have, they would have.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you are being laughed at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While your candidate goes down in flames? The color of the sky in your world must be gray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A world where a criminal like Biden can swindle his way into the presidency is indeed a gray world.
Click to expand...

LOL

By swindle, you mean beat Impeached Trump by 74 electoral votes and 7 million popular votes while you shriek, _"FRAUD,"_ but after 36 days, have still not proven any fraud in a court of law.


----------



## meaner gene

bripat9643 said:


> It is illegal if it's not a law in the state, and unless the legislature voted to make it a law, then it's illegal.  The governor or state courts cannot change the law unilaterally.  What part of that don't you get?


Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.









						2010 Georgia Code ::  TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS ::  CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ::  ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS ::  PART 1 - GOVERNOR ::  § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency; 
					






					law.justia.com
				




*ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
PART 1 - GOVERNOR
§ 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor*

(4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you are being laughed at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While your candidate goes down in flames? The color of the sky in your world must be gray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A world where a criminal like Biden can swindle his way into the presidency is indeed a gray world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> By swindle, you mean beat Impeached Trump by 74 electoral votes and 7 million popular votes while you shriek, _"FRAUD,"_ but after 36 days, have still not proven any fraud in a court of law.
Click to expand...

5 millon of those votes were manufactured out of thin air.


----------



## bripat9643

meaner gene said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is illegal if it's not a law in the state, and unless the legislature voted to make it a law, then it's illegal.  The governor or state courts cannot change the law unilaterally.  What part of that don't you get?
> 
> 
> 
> Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010 Georgia Code ::  TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS ::  CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ::  ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS ::  PART 1 - GOVERNOR ::  § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> law.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
> PART 1 - GOVERNOR
> § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor*
> 
> (4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.
Click to expand...

Those powers don't apply to election law.  The Constitution grants those powers only to the state legislature.  How many times does that fact have to pounded into your thick skull?


----------



## bripat9643

meaner gene said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is illegal if it's not a law in the state, and unless the legislature voted to make it a law, then it's illegal.  The governor or state courts cannot change the law unilaterally.  What part of that don't you get?
> 
> 
> 
> Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010 Georgia Code ::  TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS ::  CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ::  ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS ::  PART 1 - GOVERNOR ::  § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> law.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
> PART 1 - GOVERNOR
> § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor*
> 
> (4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.
Click to expand...


_The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; _​
Where does it say anything about the governor?


----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010 Georgia Code ::  TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS ::  CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ::  ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS ::  PART 1 - GOVERNOR ::  § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> law.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
> PART 1 - GOVERNOR
> § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor*
> 
> (4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.





bripat9643 said:


> Those powers don't apply to election law.  The Constitution grants those powers only to the state legislature.  How many times does that fact have to pounded into your thick skull?



Wrong, the legislature granted the governor those powers, therefore it was an act of the legislature.  If they did not want it to include election law, they would have codified an exception.  They did not.

It's like giving somebody power of attorney without limitations.


----------



## bripat9643

meaner gene said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010 Georgia Code ::  TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS ::  CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ::  ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS ::  PART 1 - GOVERNOR ::  § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> law.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
> PART 1 - GOVERNOR
> § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor*
> 
> (4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those powers don't apply to election law.  The Constitution grants those powers only to the state legislature.  How many times does that fact have to pounded into your thick skull?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, the legislature granted the governor those powers, therefore it was an act of the legislature.  If they did not want it to include election law, they would have codified an exception.  They did not.
> 
> It's like giving somebody power of attorney without limitations.
Click to expand...

The legislature can't amend the US constitution, fuck nuts.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you are being laughed at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While your candidate goes down in flames? The color of the sky in your world must be gray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A world where a criminal like Biden can swindle his way into the presidency is indeed a gray world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> By swindle, you mean beat Impeached Trump by 74 electoral votes and 7 million popular votes while you shriek, _"FRAUD,"_ but after 36 days, have still not proven any fraud in a court of law.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 5 millon of those votes were manufactured out of thin air.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

Nah, you lie, fucking moron. Just like you how you just got caught lying about Michigan's mail-in voting, falsely claiming that wasn't supported by law. And of course, you're an admitted liar.



bripat9643 said:


> yes, I did lie about that.  I said it simply to trigger morons like you, and it worked.


----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> 2010 Georgia Code ::  TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS ::  CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ::  ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS ::  PART 1 - GOVERNOR ::  § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> law.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
> PART 1 - GOVERNOR
> § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor*
> 
> (4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.





bripat9643 said:


> _The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; _​
> Where does it say anything about the governor?



*To perform and exercise*_ such other functions, *powers,* and duties *as may be deemed necessary* to promote and *secure the safety and protection of the civilian population*._

Sounds like such things as expanding early voting to promote social distancing.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, nothing illegal about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does the state law of Michigan allow mail-in voting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you ever not a fucking moron?
> 
> Ever???
> 
> * Section 168.759*
Click to expand...

That's absentee voting, moron.  You've been told about the difference over 1000 times.


----------



## meaner gene

bripat9643 said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, the legislature granted the governor those powers, therefore it was an act of the legislature.  If they did not want it to include election law, they would have codified an exception.  They did not.
> 
> It's like giving somebody power of attorney without limitations.
> 
> 
> 
> The legislature can't amend the US constitution, fuck nuts.
Click to expand...

They didn't.  They gave the governor legislative powers.

IE: Allowed him to act under their authority as if done by themselves.


----------



## martybegan

busybee01 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voters Constitutional rights were violated.  That is the issue.  All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction.  That did not happen.
> 
> This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights.  *This should not be about team politics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it should not.
> 
> And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
> 
> When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
> 
> *make it about team politics* and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
> 
> That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
> 
> I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fraud?
> 
> There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is saying the States in question violated the rules. This led to the increased chance of fraud.
> 
> There is no hard evidence YET, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence you ignore.  You act like the people who did it wouldn't try to hide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the States have found no violation of their own rules.
> 
> Texas lacks standing to challenge the internal rules of another State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules are supposed to come from the Legislatures as per the US Constitution, not the Executive or the Judicial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State courts have the right to interpret state laws. State legislatures cannot ignore state constitutions.
Click to expand...


State Constitutions don't cover how the State determines how they select electors, the US Constitution does and it says clearly it's up to the State Legislatures.


----------



## bripat9643

meaner gene said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, the legislature granted the governor those powers, therefore it was an act of the legislature.  If they did not want it to include election law, they would have codified an exception.  They did not.
> 
> It's like giving somebody power of attorney without limitations.
> 
> 
> 
> The legislature can't amend the US constitution, fuck nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't.  They gave the governor legislative powers.
> 
> IE: Allowed him to act under their authority as if done by themselves.
Click to expand...

They can't give powers away that were granted by the Constitution of the US, moron


----------



## Lesh

bripat9643 said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is illegal if it's not a law in the state, and unless the legislature voted to make it a law, then it's illegal.  The governor or state courts cannot change the law unilaterally.  What part of that don't you get?
> 
> 
> 
> Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010 Georgia Code ::  TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS ::  CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ::  ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS ::  PART 1 - GOVERNOR ::  § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> law.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
> PART 1 - GOVERNOR
> § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor*
> 
> (4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those powers don't apply to election law.  The Constitution grants those powers only to the state legislature.  How many times does that fact have to pounded into your thick skull?
Click to expand...

Sorry but the SC has held that "the legislature" extends to the voters and to the courts as well


----------



## meaner gene

bripat9643 said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't.  They gave the governor legislative powers.
> 
> IE: Allowed him to act under their authority as if done by themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> They can't give powers away that were granted by the Constitution of the US, moron
Click to expand...

Sure they can.  It says by means determined by the legislature.  If they determine the governor shall have those powers, that's a determination of the legislature.

It does NOT  say done by the legislature, but determined by.

You lose.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, nothing illegal about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does the state law of Michigan allow mail-in voting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you ever not a fucking moron?
> 
> Ever???
> 
> * Section 168.759*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's absentee voting, moron.  You've been told about the difference over 1000 times.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOL

Fucking moron, Michigan changed that law in December, 2018, removing the requirement that an excuse is needed to vote absentee. Now any Michigan resident registered voter can vote absentee with no excuse.

So you just lied again.


----------



## meaner gene

Lesh said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those powers don't apply to election law.  The Constitution grants those powers only to the state legislature.  How many times does that fact have to pounded into your thick skull?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but the SC has held that "the legislature" extends to the voters and to the courts as well
Click to expand...

Thanks !!!


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is illegal if it's not a law in the state, and unless the legislature voted to make it a law, then it's illegal.  The governor or state courts cannot change the law unilaterally.  What part of that don't you get?
> 
> 
> 
> Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010 Georgia Code ::  TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS ::  CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ::  ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS ::  PART 1 - GOVERNOR ::  § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> law.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
> PART 1 - GOVERNOR
> § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor*
> 
> (4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those powers don't apply to election law.  The Constitution grants those powers only to the state legislature.  How many times does that fact have to pounded into your thick skull?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but the SC has held that "the legislature" extends to the voters and to the courts as well
Click to expand...

Utter bullshit.  

Please cite the case.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, nothing illegal about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does the state law of Michigan allow mail-in voting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you ever not a fucking moron?
> 
> Ever???
> 
> * Section 168.759*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's absentee voting, moron.  You've been told about the difference over 1000 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Fucking moron, Michigan changed that law in December, 2018, removing the requirement that an excuse is needed to vote absentee. Now any Michigan resident registered voter can vote absentee with no excuse.
> 
> So you just lied again.
Click to expand...

They still need to request a ballot.  That isn't what Michigan did.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, nothing illegal about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does the state law of Michigan allow mail-in voting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you ever not a fucking moron?
> 
> Ever???
> 
> * Section 168.759*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's absentee voting, moron.  You've been told about the difference over 1000 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Fucking moron, Michigan changed that law in December, 2018, removing the requirement that an excuse is needed to vote absentee. Now any Michigan resident registered voter can vote absentee with no excuse.
> 
> So you just lied again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They still need to request a ballot.  That isn't what Michigan did.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. You're lying again claiming they mailed out ballots without requests.



bripat9643 said:


> yes, I did lie about that.  I said it simply to trigger morons like you, and it worked.


----------



## dudmuck

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you are being laughed at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While your candidate goes down in flames? The color of the sky in your world must be gray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A world where a criminal like Biden can swindle his way into the presidency is indeed a gray world.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kondor3

iceberg said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RUSSIA.
> 
> sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.
> 
> give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree.  There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries.  Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited.  Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it?  Of course.  Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).
> 
> In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED.  Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability.  But none of them want to anger Trump.  Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.
> 
> Russia red meat for left. Wheeee
> 
> It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...oh not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.
> 
> your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You non stop attack and demonize the left.
> 
> Look to your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, *NAZIS, racists *or the like.
> 
> I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.
> 
> I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying *yet excuse the rioters.*
> 
> We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written.  I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.
> 
> Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.
> 
> I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud.  I disagreed with you.  And you go apeshit.  Every. single. time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
> 
> did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? if no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
> 
> i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.
Click to expand...

If the elected legislatures of those four States refuse to overturn the election, then that's the end of it. States rights in an election context as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.


----------



## Jim H - VA USA

Relevant sections of the COTUS, my *emphasis*...

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2...

"Each State shall appoint, *in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct*, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

14th Amendment, Section 2...

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But *when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States*, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, *is denied to any* of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, *or in any way abridged*, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, *the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion* which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."


----------



## OKTexas

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> The case in the OP has nothing to do with other cases, of course you know that, but deflection seems to be all you have. STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> Well hi, Poser! I see your dumb ass is still Trolling me again over your stupid ploy I didn't fall for. You're the fucking dumbass who posted your DD 214 as a challenge to prove you heap big brave warrior &  so you could display like a fucking peacock, an award you received.  That is the epitome of a *poser* and just one of many reasons why I use that moniker to peg your dumb ass for so long. All along I refused to display my DD 214, and instead posted my VA Benefits letter as proof of MY SEA/Nam deployments as agreed. And your dumb ass dismissed that as non-proof because it wasn't a DD 214...fucking bullshitter!
> 
> As far as the single item on topic, ALL of the cases have a common thread, notwithstanding your bullshit of trying to decouple them, one from another; Trump & Co. trying to put their collective thumbs on the scale. Tough shit Tex...you don't want to see it because you're just a fucking puppet. So piss off now Lil' Tex. You're the one making a fool of himself with your childish behavior in your 70's. TaTa *Poser*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well punk, first of all I'm not in my 70s and there in nothing in the TX suit that alleges any fraud. It simply points out States not following their own State laws, violations of due process and violations of the Constitution.
> 
> If you didn't spend so much time lying and deflecting you might be able to keep up. LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does mention the potential for fraud in the voting methods adopted, and the states' legislatures' failure to properly adopt the voting methods with that high potential for fraud.  But, fraud is not the key allegation.  Only the failure of legislatures to properly adopt through legislation.
> 
> But, talking nuance to these mouth breathers is an exercise in frivolity, so I don't blame your for being brief.
Click to expand...



Alleged fraud and potential for fraud are two different things. RIGHT???????

.


----------



## OKTexas

busybee01 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no fraud that affected the results of the election.
> 
> The Texas etc lawsuit makes no mention of fraud?
> 
> 
> 
> Fraud is like what happened in Georgia, when witnesses were sent home due to a fake emergency
> and then trays and trays of fresh new mail in ballots (the mail hidden under that table) were brought in to be filled in by remaining workers.
> Stephen Crowder has an excellent video on the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is a lie. No fraud happened in Georgia.
Click to expand...



Sure it did, it just can't be proven without a signature audit on absentee ballots.

.


----------



## OKTexas

busybee01 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> Did the states bypass their own constitution and laws to change voting laws?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. Do you have any examples from the lawsuit that you think are relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the argument seems to be that the state constitution has rules for "absentee ballots", and they sought to create a new class of balloting not defined in the constitution
> 
> So the state legislature created a new type of ballot, called a "mail-in" ballot, under rules the state legislature enacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They created it after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was signed by the Governor in October 2019. It was well before the election.
Click to expand...


If you're talking about PA, it was done in violation of the State Constitution and would require a vote of the people to approve it.

.


----------



## OKTexas

colfax_m said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the Democrats are fighting against the Right to Vote.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is fighting against the right to vote?
> 
> Texas is literally trying to get SCOTUS to take away the votes of everyone in these four states.
Click to expand...



If they had followed their own State laws, their own Constitutions and the Federal Constitution, there wouldn't have been a suit.

.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one more example of traitorous Republicans trying to overturn an election and install their candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, a moral condemnation from the poster girl for the party of election fraud and disenfranchisement.  You'll excuse me if I don't cry myself to sleep at night for not having the good opinion of someone I wouldn't piss on if she were on fire.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I really wouldn't want you pissing on me, for any reason.

Now please feel free to get back to your non-stop marathon attempt to overturn a legitimate and legal election solely because your guy lost.  Republican Refraudlican.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Circe said:


> They'll weasel out, I think.


I dont know, the SCOTUS justices have skin in this one, with the threats to expand the SCOTUS bench, so I think they are wanting to take action, but afraid of accusations of being partisan, etc, especially from within the SCOTUS.

I suspect that that they will toss the election results and declare no one won and send it to the House, or tell the state Houses to pick their own slate of delegates,, and many of these GOP snails will be willing to support Biden, so it isnt the same thing as just giving Trump the election by ruling out millions of mail-in while keeping the Trump in person votes.

I think they will punt to anyone that they think they can get it too and also make them look nonpartisan.

But My SCOTUS tea leaf reading has never been all that good.


----------



## OKTexas

busybee01 said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have said here is untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These states followed the relevent laws in their state.
Click to expand...



That's a lie, GA required ID from some voters, not from others. In PA some counties allowed voters to cure defective ballots and not in others. Both violates the States and federal due process clauses and State election laws.

.


----------



## OKTexas

busybee01 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mascale said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Texas matter has no litigated findings on which to rely.
> 
> "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
> (For a real sniff of foreign intervention: See Deut 23: 19-20, about the gouging and screwing that Moses likely learned as kid--from Acts 7 a household art and skill of Pharaoh!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there is, Bush v. Gore is one precedent that said votes within a State can not be treated differently. GA treated mail in ballots differently than in person voting. Some counties in PA allowed voters to fix their defective ballots, while others didn't. That's just two of the due process arguments being made by TX.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference. Voters who vote in person can seek assistance in voting. That may not be ne cessarily true with mail in ballots. No equal protection case here.
Click to expand...



Yeah, ok skippy. The supremes disagreed in Bush v. Gore.

.


----------



## OKTexas

busybee01 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> The case in the OP has nothing to do with other cases, of course you know that, but deflection seems to be all you have. STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> Well hi, Poser! I see your dumb ass is still Trolling me again over your stupid ploy I didn't fall for. You're the fucking dumbass who posted your DD 214 as a challenge to prove you heap big brave warrior &  so you could display like a fucking peacock, an award you received.  That is the epitome of a *poser* and just one of many reasons why I use that moniker to peg your dumb ass for so long. All along I refused to display my DD 214, and instead posted my VA Benefits letter as proof of MY SEA/Nam deployments as agreed. And your dumb ass dismissed that as non-proof because it wasn't a DD 214...fucking bullshitter!
> 
> As far as the single item on topic, ALL of the cases have a common thread, notwithstanding your bullshit of trying to decouple them, one from another; Trump & Co. trying to put their collective thumbs on the scale. Tough shit Tex...you don't want to see it because you're just a fucking puppet. So piss off now Lil' Tex. You're the one making a fool of himself with your childish behavior in your 70's. TaTa *Poser*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well punk, first of all I'm not in my 70s and there in nothing in the TX suit that alleges any fraud. It simply points out States not following their own State laws, violations of due process and violations of the Constitution.
> 
> If you didn't spend so much time lying and deflecting you might be able to keep up. LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are providing no evidence. This is a rehash of the same arguments that have been thrown out in state and federal courts.
Click to expand...



To put it quite simply, you're full of shit, just like your comrade.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Indeependent said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> The case in the OP has nothing to do with other cases, of course you know that, but deflection seems to be all you have. STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> Well hi, Poser! I see your dumb ass is still Trolling me again over your stupid ploy I didn't fall for. You're the fucking dumbass who posted your DD 214 as a challenge to prove you heap big brave warrior &  so you could display like a fucking peacock, an award you received.  That is the epitome of a *poser* and just one of many reasons why I use that moniker to peg your dumb ass for so long. All along I refused to display my DD 214, and instead posted my VA Benefits letter as proof of MY SEA/Nam deployments as agreed. And your dumb ass dismissed that as non-proof because it wasn't a DD 214...fucking bullshitter!
> 
> As far as the single item on topic, ALL of the cases have a common thread, notwithstanding your bullshit of trying to decouple them, one from another; Trump & Co. trying to put their collective thumbs on the scale. Tough shit Tex...you don't want to see it because you're just a fucking puppet. So piss off now Lil' Tex. You're the one making a fool of himself with your childish behavior in your 70's. TaTa *Poser*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well punk, first of all I'm not in my 70s and there in nothing in the TX suit that alleges any fraud. It simply points out States not following their own State laws, violations of due process and violations of the Constitution.
> 
> If you didn't spend so much time lying and deflecting you might be able to keep up. LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are providing no evidence. This is a rehash of the same arguments that have been thrown out in state and federal courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know the case they are presenting?
Click to expand...



Evidently not.

.


----------



## OKTexas

busybee01 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can apply equal protection when your state has been given affirmative action.
> 
> You have a state which gets 1.2 EC votes for every million citizens, arguing equal protection with a state which gets 1.8 EC votes for every million citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, spare us with the false equivalency bullshit.  "We don't have to follow the law, because we don't have the pure mob rule democracy that we want!!!"
> 
> The operative part of the phrase "equal protection under the law" is actually "UNDER THE LAW".  The law - in this case, the US Constitution - says that election laws are set by state legislatures.  Not by the governor, not by the state Supreme Court, not by the Secretary of State.  If a state's election was being governed by arbitrary decisions made by those other people, rather than by the laws passed by the state legislature, then that is a violation of the US Constitution.
> 
> And there's no amount of whining that "Well, the whole election is not fair, because it isn't done the way I think it should be!!!" that's going to change that fact, or be worth a taco fart in a wind tunnel to anyone here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State legislatures include the Governor. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret state constitutions. State officials also have the right to interpret laws. If that interpretation conflicts with the legislature then the legislature can pass a propos3ed law subject to approval of the Governor.
Click to expand...



Poor little misinformed commie, the governor leads the executive branch, they are not part of the legislative branch. Did you fail civics of just not take it at all?

.


----------



## WTH_Progs?

Lysistrata said:


> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.



You're kidding right?


----------



## OKTexas

bravoactual said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the end, which of course you do not show, his lawsuit was rejected.
Click to expand...



Well that's just a lie, the court is waiting on the ordered responses from the 4 States.

.


----------



## OKTexas

busybee01 said:


> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> These states broke their own laws.
> 
> Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.
> 
> Please show me where these 4 states did that.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.
> 
> All you gotta do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.
> 
> Now show me where these states followed their process.
> 
> You can't, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.
> 
> Ahiw me one case where Trump won.
> 
> You can’t, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Texas lawsuit is trash. It will dismissed out of hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from a dipwad who's already proven that he knows nothing whatsoever about the Texas lawsuit, this means . . . exactly as much as every other post you make, which is nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Texas wins the case, will all states who made voting rules changes without their legislature doing it have their EC votes voided, or just the ones listed in the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think this case would just cover the listed defendants, however any state that violated the constitution in this regard would be in jeopardy after the precedent was set.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas extended early voting without any input from the legislature. There goes those 38 EC votes for Trump down the drain.  Changes were made the same way across the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a red herring as it pertains to in person voting. Nobody has challenged that, and many states did the same. This is about absentee ballots, verification (or lack thereof), and items that do not accommodate emergency measures like social distancing. Powers granted to governors are not granted to all executive branches such as election officials unless specified by the legislature or state Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Election officials can interpret the laws that are passed by the state just as federal agencies interpret laws passed by the federal government..
Click to expand...




Sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you an idiot, than open your mouth and prove it. Yet here you are proving yourself an idiot once again.

.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Indeependent said:


> I asked...Do you know the case they are presenting?
> You responded...No.
> Now go look up the case they are presenting; it should only take a few minutes.


lol, ahhhh, that is so adorable!

You seem to expect them to actually do that, but I think we both know better.

The use of facts and reason to the libtards is like garlic and crosses to a vampire.


----------



## Pogo

JimBowie1958 said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> They'll weasel out, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know, the SCOTUS justices have skin in this one, with the threats to expand the SCOTUS bench, so I think they are wanting to take action, but afraid of accusations of being partisan, etc, especially from within the SCOTUS.
> 
> I suspect that that they will toss the election results and declare no one won and send it to the House, or tell the state Houses to pick their own slate of delegates,, and many of these GOP snails will be willing to support Biden, so it isnt the same thing as just giving Trump the election by ruling out millions of mail-in while keeping the Trump in person votes.
> 
> I think they will punt to anyone that they think they can get it too and also make them look nonpartisan.
> 
> But My SCOTUS tea leaf reading has never been all that good.
Click to expand...


And it's even WORSE here.  What a crock you just wrote.  NO Virginia, the SCOTUS will NOT "toss the election results" as they have no jurisdiction to do so. let alone the rest of your psychotic wet dream.

I thought I just posted this but it must have been the other thread on the same thing --- the COTUS Article II says the states shall appoint their Electors "in such Manner as the Legislatures thereof may direct".  THAT is what state legislatures do, and it's already done.  That is, that each state holds a popular election and then allocates its Electors based on that.

THAT'S IT.  That' what the legislature does, and it got done a long time ago.  Constitution is fulfilled right there.

NOW, if you can find us a state that is defying that procedure, like, say, a state that's ignoring its popular vote of a month ago and picking its Electors not on the vote totals but on, say, incessant begging phone calls from a petulant man-child in the White House crying his eyes out because he's a loser, *THEN* you begin to have a case of not following the COTUS.


----------



## OKTexas

busybee01 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can apply equal protection when your state has been given affirmative action.
> 
> You have a state which gets 1.2 EC votes for every million citizens, arguing equal protection with a state which gets 1.8 EC votes for every million citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, spare us with the false equivalency bullshit.  "We don't have to follow the law, because we don't have the pure mob rule democracy that we want!!!"
> 
> The operative part of the phrase "equal protection under the law" is actually "UNDER THE LAW".  The law - in this case, the US Constitution - says that election laws are set by state legislatures.  Not by the governor, not by the state Supreme Court, not by the Secretary of State.  If a state's election was being governed by arbitrary decisions made by those other people, rather than by the laws passed by the state legislature, then that is a violation of the US Constitution.
> 
> And there's no amount of whining that "Well, the whole election is not fair, because it isn't done the way I think it should be!!!" that's going to change that fact, or be worth a taco fart in a wind tunnel to anyone here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State legislatures include the Governor. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret state constitutions. State officials also have the right to interpret laws. If that interpretation conflicts with the legislature then the legislature can pass a propos3ed law subject to approval of the Governor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't, no more than the US Congress includes the President.  The state Supreme Court has the job of APPLYING the state Constitution.  Do not give me this leftist "I really hope you fall for it" bullshit about "they were just interpreting the law when they decided that the deadline was three days later."  There's no interpretation involved in fucking numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no clue what is in the Pennsylvania state constitution.
Click to expand...



Poor commie, it's online, you can read it for yourself.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Skylar said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> 
> 
> And that is a GOOD thing, trust me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the sophisticated people I know want to live with the hillbillys when they retire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or, with each other as they slowly shift States Blue.
> 
> Ask Texas, Georgia and Arizona.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what happens when Liberals are afraid of the Blue War Zone they created and they flee to Safe States.
> Of course, these Liberals are still Mentally Ill and turn the Safe State into yet another Blue War Zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or they sell their homes from States with high property values for tons of money and move to States with low property values and live large.
> 
> Its a similar situation for ex-pats moving to say, Mexico.
Click to expand...



Yeah, that's why Elan Musk told CA to pound sand and moved to TX, yep, must be. LMAO

.


----------



## bripat9643

meaner gene said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010 Georgia Code ::  TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS ::  CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ::  ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS ::  PART 1 - GOVERNOR ::  § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> law.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
> PART 1 - GOVERNOR
> § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor*
> 
> (4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; _​
> Where does it say anything about the governor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *To perform and exercise*_ such other functions, *powers,* and duties *as may be deemed necessary* to promote and *secure the safety and protection of the civilian population*._
> 
> Sounds like such things as expanding early voting to promote social distancing.
Click to expand...

What part of "states legislatures can't delegate powers granted to them by the Constitution" didn't you understand?


----------



## Skylar

OKTexas said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> 
> 
> And that is a GOOD thing, trust me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the sophisticated people I know want to live with the hillbillys when they retire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or, with each other as they slowly shift States Blue.
> 
> Ask Texas, Georgia and Arizona.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what happens when Liberals are afraid of the Blue War Zone they created and they flee to Safe States.
> Of course, these Liberals are still Mentally Ill and turn the Safe State into yet another Blue War Zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or they sell their homes from States with high property values for tons of money and move to States with low property values and live large.
> 
> Its a similar situation for ex-pats moving to say, Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's why Elan Musk told CA to pound sand and moved to TX, yep, must be. LMAO
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Elon Musk isn't who is turning Arizona, Georgia and Texas blue.


----------



## Skylar

OKTexas said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have said here is untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These states followed the relevent laws in their state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie, GA required ID from some voters, not from others. In PA some counties allowed voters to cure defective ballots and not in others. Both violates the States and federal due process clauses and State election laws.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The PA curing issue was already adjudicated by the federal courts and found to be perfectly legal. Appeals to the Supreme Court have never received cert.


----------



## bripat9643

meaner gene said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, the legislature granted the governor those powers, therefore it was an act of the legislature.  If they did not want it to include election law, they would have codified an exception.  They did not.
> 
> It's like giving somebody power of attorney without limitations.
> 
> 
> 
> The legislature can't amend the US constitution, fuck nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't.  They gave the governor legislative powers.
> 
> IE: Allowed him to act under their authority as if done by themselves.
Click to expand...

What part of "the legislature can't delegate powers that have been granted to it by the US Constitution" don't you understand?


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is illegal if it's not a law in the state, and unless the legislature voted to make it a law, then it's illegal.  The governor or state courts cannot change the law unilaterally.  What part of that don't you get?
> 
> 
> 
> Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010 Georgia Code ::  TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS ::  CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ::  ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS ::  PART 1 - GOVERNOR ::  § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> law.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
> PART 1 - GOVERNOR
> § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor*
> 
> (4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those powers don't apply to election law.  The Constitution grants those powers only to the state legislature.  How many times does that fact have to pounded into your thick skull?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but the SC has held that "the legislature" extends to the voters and to the courts as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter bullshit.
> 
> Please cite the case.
Click to expand...


You're asking for sources? You? Who routinely makes up steaming piles of pseudo-legal horseshit and can never back any of it?


----------



## Rogue AI

Skylar said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have said here is untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These states followed the relevent laws in their state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie, GA required ID from some voters, not from others. In PA some counties allowed voters to cure defective ballots and not in others. Both violates the States and federal due process clauses and State election laws.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA curing issue was already adjudicated by the federal courts and found to be perfectly legal. Appeals to the Supreme Court have never received cert.
Click to expand...

Except that curing process is arbitrary. Some were cured some weren't, which leads right back to equal protection.


----------



## OKTexas

Pogo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.
> 
> And just HOW exactly is Texas "injured" by what the fuck some other state is doing?   Hm?
> 
> The reference Article II Section 1 Clause 2 reads, and we know it well by now:
> 
> >>  Each State shall appoint, *in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct*, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<
> 
> Read it again --- "in such Manner as the Legislature *thereof* may direct".  Not "in such Manner as the AG of Frickin' Texas may direct".
> 
> This clown should be disbarred.
Click to expand...



So tell the class, where does it say the State SOS can enter into a consent decree and alter what the legislature directed? Dumb fucking commie.

.


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is illegal if it's not a law in the state, and unless the legislature voted to make it a law, then it's illegal.  The governor or state courts cannot change the law unilaterally.  What part of that don't you get?
> 
> 
> 
> Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010 Georgia Code ::  TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS ::  CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ::  ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS ::  PART 1 - GOVERNOR ::  § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> law.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
> PART 1 - GOVERNOR
> § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor*
> 
> (4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those powers don't apply to election law.  The Constitution grants those powers only to the state legislature.  How many times does that fact have to pounded into your thick skull?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but the SC has held that "the legislature" extends to the voters and to the courts as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter bullshit.
> 
> Please cite the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're asking for sources? You? Who routinely makes up steaming piles of pseudo-legal horseshit and can never back any of it?
Click to expand...

IN other words, you can't provide a case demonstrating your claim.


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, the legislature granted the governor those powers, therefore it was an act of the legislature.  If they did not want it to include election law, they would have codified an exception.  They did not.
> 
> It's like giving somebody power of attorney without limitations.
> 
> 
> 
> The legislature can't amend the US constitution, fuck nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't.  They gave the governor legislative powers.
> 
> IE: Allowed him to act under their authority as if done by themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of "the legislature can't delegate powers that have been granted to it by the US Constitution" don't you understand?
Click to expand...


The part where you have no idea what you're talking about. Congress has delegated its powers all the time. Why would the State legislatures be unable to do so?


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is illegal if it's not a law in the state, and unless the legislature voted to make it a law, then it's illegal.  The governor or state courts cannot change the law unilaterally.  What part of that don't you get?
> 
> 
> 
> Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010 Georgia Code ::  TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS ::  CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ::  ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS ::  PART 1 - GOVERNOR ::  § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> law.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
> PART 1 - GOVERNOR
> § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor*
> 
> (4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those powers don't apply to election law.  The Constitution grants those powers only to the state legislature.  How many times does that fact have to pounded into your thick skull?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but the SC has held that "the legislature" extends to the voters and to the courts as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter bullshit.
> 
> Please cite the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're asking for sources? You? Who routinely makes up steaming piles of pseudo-legal horseshit and can never back any of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IN other words, you can't provide a case demonstrating your claim.
Click to expand...

And what claim did I make? Quote me.


----------



## Skylar

Rogue AI said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have said here is untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These states followed the relevent laws in their state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie, GA required ID from some voters, not from others. In PA some counties allowed voters to cure defective ballots and not in others. Both violates the States and federal due process clauses and State election laws.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA curing issue was already adjudicated by the federal courts and found to be perfectly legal. Appeals to the Supreme Court have never received cert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that curing process is arbitrary. Some were cured some weren't, which leads right back to equal protection.
Click to expand...


The equal protection issues as they relate to curing were directly addressed in the federal rulings. And found to be invalid.

No appeals of these cases to the Supreme Court have ever been granted writ.


----------



## OKTexas

meaner gene said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010 Georgia Code ::  TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS ::  CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ::  ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS ::  PART 1 - GOVERNOR ::  § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> law.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
> PART 1 - GOVERNOR
> § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor*
> 
> (4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those powers don't apply to election law.  The Constitution grants those powers only to the state legislature.  How many times does that fact have to pounded into your thick skull?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, the legislature granted the governor those powers, therefore it was an act of the legislature.  If they did not want it to include election law, they would have codified an exception.  They did not.
> 
> It's like giving somebody power of attorney without limitations.
Click to expand...



So show us where that power was granted to the GA SOS.

.


----------



## Skylar

OKTexas said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010 Georgia Code ::  TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS ::  CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ::  ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS ::  PART 1 - GOVERNOR ::  § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> law.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
> PART 1 - GOVERNOR
> § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor*
> 
> (4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those powers don't apply to election law.  The Constitution grants those powers only to the state legislature.  How many times does that fact have to pounded into your thick skull?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, the legislature granted the governor those powers, therefore it was an act of the legislature.  If they did not want it to include election law, they would have codified an exception.  They did not.
> 
> It's like giving somebody power of attorney without limitations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So show us where that power was granted to the GA SOS.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Kemp seems pretty sure about the issue:

_“Georgia law prohibits the governor from interfering in elections. The secretary of state, who is an elected constitutional officer, has oversight over elections that cannot be overridden by executive order,” a spokesperson for Kemp told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution._


----------



## Rogue AI

Skylar said:


> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have said here is untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These states followed the relevent laws in their state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie, GA required ID from some voters, not from others. In PA some counties allowed voters to cure defective ballots and not in others. Both violates the States and federal due process clauses and State election laws.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA curing issue was already adjudicated by the federal courts and found to be perfectly legal. Appeals to the Supreme Court have never received cert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that curing process is arbitrary. Some were cured some weren't, which leads right back to equal protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The equal protection issues as they relate to curing were directly addressed in the federal rulings. And found to be invalid.
> 
> No appeals of these cases to the Supreme Court have ever been granted writ.
Click to expand...

Previously you did not have the sheer numbers you have this cycle, more so with the ridiculously low rejection rates. Look at Wisconsin, the absentee ballot use tripled or quadruped from 2016. Yet rejection rates were significantly lower. That outcome defies logic.


----------



## Skylar

Rogue AI said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have said here is untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These states followed the relevent laws in their state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie, GA required ID from some voters, not from others. In PA some counties allowed voters to cure defective ballots and not in others. Both violates the States and federal due process clauses and State election laws.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA curing issue was already adjudicated by the federal courts and found to be perfectly legal. Appeals to the Supreme Court have never received cert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that curing process is arbitrary. Some were cured some weren't, which leads right back to equal protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The equal protection issues as they relate to curing were directly addressed in the federal rulings. And found to be invalid.
> 
> No appeals of these cases to the Supreme Court have ever been granted writ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Previously you did not have the sheer numbers you have this cycle, more so with the ridiculously low rejection rates. Look at Wisconsin, the absentee ballot use tripled or quadruped from 2016. Yet rejection rates were significantly lower. That outcome defies logic.
Click to expand...


The federal rulings were about the 2020 election and the PA curing issue as it relates to Equal Protection violations, specifically.

This issue was already adudicated. No violations were ever found. And the Supreme Court has never granted cert to any appeals.


----------



## OKTexas

Skylar said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> 
> 
> And that is a GOOD thing, trust me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the sophisticated people I know want to live with the hillbillys when they retire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or, with each other as they slowly shift States Blue.
> 
> Ask Texas, Georgia and Arizona.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what happens when Liberals are afraid of the Blue War Zone they created and they flee to Safe States.
> Of course, these Liberals are still Mentally Ill and turn the Safe State into yet another Blue War Zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or they sell their homes from States with high property values for tons of money and move to States with low property values and live large.
> 
> Its a similar situation for ex-pats moving to say, Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's why Elan Musk told CA to pound sand and moved to TX, yep, must be. LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elon Musk isn't who is turning Arizona, Georgia and Texas blue.
Click to expand...



Neither will the thousands of people he hires. I have some new neighbors who just moved here from OR, they won't be turning the State blue either. They couldn't wait to get the hell out of that shit hole.

.


----------



## Rogue AI

Skylar said:


> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue AI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have said here is untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These states followed the relevent laws in their state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie, GA required ID from some voters, not from others. In PA some counties allowed voters to cure defective ballots and not in others. Both violates the States and federal due process clauses and State election laws.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA curing issue was already adjudicated by the federal courts and found to be perfectly legal. Appeals to the Supreme Court have never received cert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that curing process is arbitrary. Some were cured some weren't, which leads right back to equal protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The equal protection issues as they relate to curing were directly addressed in the federal rulings. And found to be invalid.
> 
> No appeals of these cases to the Supreme Court have ever been granted writ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Previously you did not have the sheer numbers you have this cycle, more so with the ridiculously low rejection rates. Look at Wisconsin, the absentee ballot use tripled or quadruped from 2016. Yet rejection rates were significantly lower. That outcome defies logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federal rulings were about the 2020 election and the PA curing issue as it relates to Equal Protection violations, specifically.
> 
> This issue was already adudicated. No violations were ever found. And the Supreme Court has never granted cert to any appeals.
Click to expand...

Well that's PA and all indications are the whole process was flawed from top to bottom. A second, third, or hundredth look seems like a good idea.


----------



## OKTexas

Skylar said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have said here is untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These states followed the relevent laws in their state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie, GA required ID from some voters, not from others. In PA some counties allowed voters to cure defective ballots and not in others. Both violates the States and federal due process clauses and State election laws.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA curing issue was already adjudicated by the federal courts and found to be perfectly legal. Appeals to the Supreme Court have never received cert.
Click to expand...



Has nothing to do with the due process issue and voters being treated different depending on the county.

.


----------



## Skylar

OKTexas said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> 
> 
> And that is a GOOD thing, trust me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the sophisticated people I know want to live with the hillbillys when they retire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or, with each other as they slowly shift States Blue.
> 
> Ask Texas, Georgia and Arizona.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what happens when Liberals are afraid of the Blue War Zone they created and they flee to Safe States.
> Of course, these Liberals are still Mentally Ill and turn the Safe State into yet another Blue War Zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or they sell their homes from States with high property values for tons of money and move to States with low property values and live large.
> 
> Its a similar situation for ex-pats moving to say, Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's why Elan Musk told CA to pound sand and moved to TX, yep, must be. LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elon Musk isn't who is turning Arizona, Georgia and Texas blue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Neither will the thousands of people he hires. I have some new neighbors who just moved here from OR, they won't be turning the State blue either. They couldn't wait to get the hell out of that shit hole.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It would all the hundreds of thousands of OTHER people moving from high value states with superb home values to low value states with cheap land that are turning Arizona, Georgia and Texas blue.

Like San Francisco to San Antonio. Or Seattle to the suburbs of Atlanta. Or Portland to Tuscon. 

I've lived in both California and Texas. They're both great.


----------



## OKTexas

Skylar said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010 Georgia Code ::  TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS ::  CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ::  ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS ::  PART 1 - GOVERNOR ::  § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> law.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
> PART 1 - GOVERNOR
> § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor*
> 
> (4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those powers don't apply to election law.  The Constitution grants those powers only to the state legislature.  How many times does that fact have to pounded into your thick skull?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, the legislature granted the governor those powers, therefore it was an act of the legislature.  If they did not want it to include election law, they would have codified an exception.  They did not.
> 
> It's like giving somebody power of attorney without limitations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So show us where that power was granted to the GA SOS.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kemp seems pretty sure about the issue:
> 
> _“Georgia law prohibits the governor from interfering in elections. The secretary of state, who is an elected constitutional officer, has oversight over elections that cannot be overridden by executive order,” a spokesperson for Kemp told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution._
Click to expand...



So you can't answer, got it. Oversight and unilaterally changing the law are two different things.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Skylar said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> 
> 
> And that is a GOOD thing, trust me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the sophisticated people I know want to live with the hillbillys when they retire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or, with each other as they slowly shift States Blue.
> 
> Ask Texas, Georgia and Arizona.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what happens when Liberals are afraid of the Blue War Zone they created and they flee to Safe States.
> Of course, these Liberals are still Mentally Ill and turn the Safe State into yet another Blue War Zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or they sell their homes from States with high property values for tons of money and move to States with low property values and live large.
> 
> Its a similar situation for ex-pats moving to say, Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's why Elan Musk told CA to pound sand and moved to TX, yep, must be. LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elon Musk isn't who is turning Arizona, Georgia and Texas blue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Neither will the thousands of people he hires. I have some new neighbors who just moved here from OR, they won't be turning the State blue either. They couldn't wait to get the hell out of that shit hole.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would all the hundreds of thousands of OTHER people moving from high value states with superb home values to low value states with cheap land that are turning Arizona, Georgia and Texas blue.
> 
> Like San Francisco to San Antonio. Or Seattle to the suburbs of Atlanta. Or Portland to Tuscon.
> 
> I've lived in both California and Texas. They're both great.
Click to expand...



Yeah, that's why Cornyn beat the commie by almost 10 points. He actually outperformed Trump.

.


----------



## Care4all

BluesLegend said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the state law of Michigan allow mail-in voting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dems give two shits about the law. What's funny though is the historical irony over Hillary telling Biden not to concede for any reason and now the left's conniption fit over Trump refusing to concede.
Click to expand...

Not to concede early before all the absentee ballots are counted, the primary means of voting, by democrats.  Which are counted last....

All the votes have been counted...and recounted and canvassed and certified.


----------



## Indeependent

Care4all said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the state law of Michigan allow mail-in voting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dems give two shits about the law. What's funny though is the historical irony over Hillary telling Biden not to concede for any reason and now the left's conniption fit over Trump refusing to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to concede early before all the absentee ballots are counted, the primary means of voting, by democrats.  Which are counted last....
> 
> All the votes have been counted...and recounted and canvassed and certified.
Click to expand...

Then sit back, relax and enjoy the show.


----------



## Care4all

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dominion conspiracy is double stupid.
> 
> First, there's nothing to support it. So belief in the dominion batshit is just pure, unrefined dipshittery.
> 
> 
> 
> just a blatant bold lie which you seem to specialize in. Where has Dominion gone to if they are so pure
> and non controversial? They've just shut down offices, scrubbed identities and declined to show up in
> Pennsylvania for a little talk with officials there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michigan Judge Allows Forensic Investigation Of Dominion Voting Machines
> 
> 
> What will come of this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wbckfm.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feeling stupid yet? You have no conscience apparently you lie so much and so freely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, its been demonstrably disproven. If Dominion voting machines were changing votes, then physical paper ballot (with the votes written right on it for the voter to review) would be wildly different than the electronic vote tallies.
> 
> Georgia hand counted the physical ballots. *The hand recount of the physical ballots matched the electronic tallies with WAY more than 99% accuracy. *
> 
> Obliterating this silly turd of a conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dominion *weighs* ballots. It gives Biden votes more worth than Trump votes. In addition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Georgia voting irregularities: The curious case of Biden’s 20,000-vote surge - The Citizen
> 
> 
> A curious thing happened as Fulton County, Ga., election officials counted mail-in ballots at Atlanta’s State Farm Arena in the days after the election. By PAUL SPERRY RealClearInvestigations [EDITOR’S NOTE: This …
> 
> 
> 
> thecitizen.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you bother hanging around lying and bullshitting? Your little plan to steal the election
> is in the middle of a collapse.  Thank you Texas. Thank you Supreme Court.
> Thank you rabid stupid democrats.
Click to expand...

When the audit of dominion voting machines is over in Michigan, and nothing irregular is found with them, will Trump concede?

Georgia did 2 HAND recounts and the paper ballots matched the Dominion machine count, why hasn't trump conceded?


----------



## Indeependent

Care4all said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dominion conspiracy is double stupid.
> 
> First, there's nothing to support it. So belief in the dominion batshit is just pure, unrefined dipshittery.
> 
> 
> 
> just a blatant bold lie which you seem to specialize in. Where has Dominion gone to if they are so pure
> and non controversial? They've just shut down offices, scrubbed identities and declined to show up in
> Pennsylvania for a little talk with officials there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michigan Judge Allows Forensic Investigation Of Dominion Voting Machines
> 
> 
> What will come of this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wbckfm.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feeling stupid yet? You have no conscience apparently you lie so much and so freely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, its been demonstrably disproven. If Dominion voting machines were changing votes, then physical paper ballot (with the votes written right on it for the voter to review) would be wildly different than the electronic vote tallies.
> 
> Georgia hand counted the physical ballots. *The hand recount of the physical ballots matched the electronic tallies with WAY more than 99% accuracy. *
> 
> Obliterating this silly turd of a conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dominion *weighs* ballots. It gives Biden votes more worth than Trump votes. In addition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Georgia voting irregularities: The curious case of Biden’s 20,000-vote surge - The Citizen
> 
> 
> A curious thing happened as Fulton County, Ga., election officials counted mail-in ballots at Atlanta’s State Farm Arena in the days after the election. By PAUL SPERRY RealClearInvestigations [EDITOR’S NOTE: This …
> 
> 
> 
> thecitizen.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you bother hanging around lying and bullshitting? Your little plan to steal the election
> is in the middle of a collapse.  Thank you Texas. Thank you Supreme Court.
> Thank you rabid stupid democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the audit of dominion voting machines is over in Michigan, and nothing irregular is found with them, will Trump concede?
> 
> Georgia did 2 HAND recounts and the paper ballots matched the Dominion machine count, why hasn't trump conceded?
Click to expand...

The Texas suit is not about fraud.


----------



## Care4all

bripat9643 said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, the legislature granted the governor those powers, therefore it was an act of the legislature.  If they did not want it to include election law, they would have codified an exception.  They did not.
> 
> It's like giving somebody power of attorney without limitations.
> 
> 
> 
> The legislature can't amend the US constitution, fuck nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't.  They gave the governor legislative powers.
> 
> IE: Allowed him to act under their authority as if done by themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can't give powers away that were granted by the Constitution of the US, moron
Click to expand...

Of course they can silly one!  The constitution gives them the power.


----------



## Care4all

Pogo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> They'll weasel out, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know, the SCOTUS justices have skin in this one, with the threats to expand the SCOTUS bench, so I think they are wanting to take action, but afraid of accusations of being partisan, etc, especially from within the SCOTUS.
> 
> I suspect that that they will toss the election results and declare no one won and send it to the House, or tell the state Houses to pick their own slate of delegates,, and many of these GOP snails will be willing to support Biden, so it isnt the same thing as just giving Trump the election by ruling out millions of mail-in while keeping the Trump in person votes.
> 
> I think they will punt to anyone that they think they can get it too and also make them look nonpartisan.
> 
> But My SCOTUS tea leaf reading has never been all that good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's even WORSE here.  What a crock you just wrote.  NO Virginia, the SCOTUS will NOT "toss the election results" as they have no jurisdiction to do so. let alone the rest of your psychotic wet dream.
> 
> I thought I just posted this but it must have been the other thread on the same thing --- the COTUS Article II says the states shall appoint their Electors "in such Manner as the Legislatures thereof may direct".  THAT is what state legislatures do, and it's already done.  That is, that each state holds a popular election and then allocates its Electors based on that.
> 
> THAT'S IT.  That' what the legislature does, and it got done a long time ago.  Constitution is fulfilled right there.
> 
> NOW, if you can find us a state that is defying that procedure, like, say, a state that's ignoring its popular vote of a month ago and picking its Electors not on the vote totals but on, say, incessant begging phone calls from a petulant man-child in the White House crying his eyes out because he's a loser, *THEN* you begin to have a case of not following the COTUS.
Click to expand...

Yep!!!


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

j-mac said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course - Texas has every right to change election laws in all 57 states because, you know ... TEXAS!
> Good lord, when will Republicans stop embarrassing themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will make them pay for it?
> 
> Their voters?? Nope...
> 
> They are embarrassing themselves for their voters....
> 
> and when this is said and done, I guarantee you that these folks will get pissed if you ever remind them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you would prefer the people nationwide to pay for those States' "right" to defraud the the rest of the rest the United States. Voting fraud affects *all* Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allegations of fraud with no evidence shouldn't affect any Americans....
> 
> We are weeks now of the allegations of fraud... Where is the evidence... Evidence that will stand up in court...
> 
> Where is it?
> 
> No messages of 'it is coming' or 'it is everywhere'... Accusing people of a crime and having no evidence is a crime in itself...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are as sick of this as I am and the judges are. That idiot AG in Texas now claims 80 million fraudulent votes with no evidence. They pull this crap out of their ass and expect people to enjoy the scent. It's beyond ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sweety-------------Texas had their better IT guys inspect the Dominion system before the election throughly and reject allowing it in TEXAS because they found that the system was basically meant to create FRAUD----------
> 
> TEXAS IT guys understand the system and how it was used to CHEAT.............
> 
> Even my lib brother who happens to be the director of computer it department for one of the colleges is  saying Biden is fucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If those IT guys already inspected the software, it should be easy to present evidence of how votes were stolen. Just saying you think it was possible isn't enough. You gotta show evidence that it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More to ignore right?
Click to expand...

Why are you so sure that Clinton really won re-election in 96?

How are you confident that Bush won re-election in 2004??


How do we know that Sean Spicer really didn't win Dancing With The Stars??


----------



## iceberg

meaner gene said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010 Georgia Code ::  TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS ::  CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ::  ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS ::  PART 1 - GOVERNOR ::  § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> law.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
> PART 1 - GOVERNOR
> § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor*
> 
> (4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those powers don't apply to election law.  The Constitution grants those powers only to the state legislature.  How many times does that fact have to pounded into your thick skull?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, the legislature granted the governor those powers, therefore it was an act of the legislature.  If they did not want it to include election law, they would have codified an exception.  They did not.
> 
> It's like giving somebody power of attorney without limitations.
Click to expand...

where did they do this and by what process that has been approved in their constitution??


----------



## Care4all

The constitution gives legislatures the power to choose the manner in which electors are chosen....  by the legislature voting themselves, or by the vote of the citizens, or by flipping a coin etc.

These legislatures chose to give up the legislature picking the electors, and gave it to the citizens to choose.


----------



## iceberg

Care4all said:


> The constitution gives legislatures the power to choose the manner in which electors are chosen....  by the legislature voting themselves, or by the vote of the citizens, or by flipping a coin etc.
> 
> These legislatures chose to give up the legislature picking the electors, and gave it to the citizens to choose.


But the legislature did NOT approve or vote on the changes. 

If they did, show me. Otherwise just stop the bullshit.


----------



## Care4all

My guess is the Supreme court will not get involved.

Can you even imagine the precedent set that states can sue other states because  they didnt like the way another state's election was run?

Jebus Crisco!  We'd never have any election of our leaders by we the people, and only by some court judges!


----------



## Care4all

iceberg said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution gives legislatures the power to choose the manner in which electors are chosen....  by the legislature voting themselves, or by the vote of the citizens, or by flipping a coin etc.
> 
> These legislatures chose to give up the legislature picking the electors, and gave it to the citizens to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> But the legislature did NOT approve or vote on the changes.
> 
> If they did, show me. Otherwise just stop the bullshit.
Click to expand...

The duty was to decide if their legislature was going to choose the electors, if not, then who?  All of our different legislatures chose the citizens vote would determine and choose their electors.  Thats the "manner" in which they are chosen that the constitution speaks of....  once this is chosen, the constitutional requirement is fulfilled.

The US constitution does not govern the finer details of how an election process is done within each state.

The Texas case has no Constitutional standing.

Michiganders etc. can argue about their own processes not being followed in their own State courts.... but the US constitutional mandate of their legislatures choosing the "manner" of electing their electors, thru the citizen's vote, instead of the legislature's vote, was fulfilled, in my opinion.


----------



## iceberg

Care4all said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution gives legislatures the power to choose the manner in which electors are chosen....  by the legislature voting themselves, or by the vote of the citizens, or by flipping a coin etc.
> 
> These legislatures chose to give up the legislature picking the electors, and gave it to the citizens to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> But the legislature did NOT approve or vote on the changes.
> 
> If they did, show me. Otherwise just stop the bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The duty was to decide if their legislature was going to choose the electors, if not, then who?  All of our different legislatures chose the citizens vote would determine and choose their electors.  Thats the "manner" in which they are chosen that the constitution speaks of....  once this is chosen, the constitutional requirement is fulfilled.
> 
> The US constitution does not govern the finer details of how an election process is done within each state.
> 
> The Texas case has no Constitutional standing.
> 
> Michiganders etc. can argue about their own processes not being followed in their own State courts.... but the US constitutional mandate of their legislatures choosing the "manner" of electing their electors, thru the citizen's vote, instead of the legislature's vote, was fulfilled, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

you once again SURPRISE are not answering the question.

changing how we vote is a legislature function. please see SEPARATION OF POWERS to help understand why we do this.

now - please show me where these states did in fact go through their LEGISLATURE to make these changes.

all you gotta do. anything is else a shitshow distraction that i am simply not going to chase down.


----------



## candycorn

iceberg said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution gives legislatures the power to choose the manner in which electors are chosen....  by the legislature voting themselves, or by the vote of the citizens, or by flipping a coin etc.
> 
> These legislatures chose to give up the legislature picking the electors, and gave it to the citizens to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> But the legislature did NOT approve or vote on the changes.
> 
> If they did, show me. Otherwise just stop the bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The duty was to decide if their legislature was going to choose the electors, if not, then who?  All of our different legislatures chose the citizens vote would determine and choose their electors.  Thats the "manner" in which they are chosen that the constitution speaks of....  once this is chosen, the constitutional requirement is fulfilled.
> 
> The US constitution does not govern the finer details of how an election process is done within each state.
> 
> The Texas case has no Constitutional standing.
> 
> Michiganders etc. can argue about their own processes not being followed in their own State courts.... but the US constitutional mandate of their legislatures choosing the "manner" of electing their electors, thru the citizen's vote, instead of the legislature's vote, was fulfilled, in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you once again SURPRISE are not answering the question.
> 
> changing how we vote is a legislature function. please see SEPARATION OF POWERS to help understand why we do this.
> 
> now - please show me where these states did in fact go through their LEGISLATURE to make these changes.
> 
> all you gotta do. anything is else a shitshow distraction that i am simply not going to chase down.
Click to expand...


They probably didn't...just like Texas didn't. One difference was that the Supreme Court validated Pennsylvania's election plan as for allowing 3 days of receipt of ballots mailed in by November third.  









						High court allows 3-day extension for Pennsylvania ballots
					

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will allow Pennsylvania to count mailed-in ballots received up to three days after the Nov...




					apnews.com


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

bripat9643 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever read the articles?  Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and is was one of the things the Texas case said was an irregularity or illegal.
> 
> The SC won't take the case is my bet, or take it for some time down the road, where the people's choice of Biden is not affected.
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texans voted, Texans appointed their electors.  What another state does is none of their bee's wax, according to the constitution.... imo.  The people of those 4 states chose Biden, by landslides in most of them....there is no ambiguity.  The laws tweaked by the court rulings, truly matters naught...Biden, was chosen by their citizens to be our next president, in good faith....  they followed the election laws they were told were legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion isn't worth shit.  So if another state approves slavery, that's none of your business?  You realize that your fucking stupid, don't you?
Click to expand...

There's no evidence of 'fraud.'

One cannot be hurt by that which doesn't exist.


----------



## BWK

Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.


----------



## iceberg

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever read the articles?  Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and is was one of the things the Texas case said was an irregularity or illegal.
> 
> The SC won't take the case is my bet, or take it for some time down the road, where the people's choice of Biden is not affected.
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texans voted, Texans appointed their electors.  What another state does is none of their bee's wax, according to the constitution.... imo.  The people of those 4 states chose Biden, by landslides in most of them....there is no ambiguity.  The laws tweaked by the court rulings, truly matters naught...Biden, was chosen by their citizens to be our next president, in good faith....  they followed the election laws they were told were legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion isn't worth shit.  So if another state approves slavery, that's none of your business?  You realize that your fucking stupid, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no evidence of 'fraud.'
> 
> One cannot be hurt by that which doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

there's lots of it. you saying there isn't is working any better than you insisting RUSSIA hacked our elections.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

BWK said:


> Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.


Sanity?   Do you believe men with tits are women?


----------



## postman

I don't know what the lawsuit is asking for, because they've already gone PAST the "safe harbor"  If they invalidate the EC votes of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia, Trump still won't win.

Remember, it's not a race to 270, it's a race to the majority of elector appointed.  If they decertify 62 electors, than the total drops from 538 to 476 and you now need 239 to win.
Biden had 306, minus  62 gives him 244

244 is still more than the 239 needed to win.

It's simple math.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

andaronjim said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> Sanity?   Do you believe men with tits are women?
Click to expand...

The reason why i have asked you this question, is i need to understand your definition of Sanity...


----------



## Gdjjr

BWK said:


> where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity.


Have you ever heard of a court room? Just curious. Defense lawyers do that- and, it can lead to a corrupt prosecution- do you want people to just roll over and accept that? It appears your bias is evidence you do. 

There is no Law of Innocence to be applied- fyi- however, until a trial proves otherwise (no matter the how) then in the US, our system, allegedly, performs in the blind justice mode- that is not blinded by, btw- a good defense lawyer has to maintain innocence while the burden of proof of guilt lies with the prosecution- again, there is no law of innocence that can be applied- btw, I don't think a civil action lawsuit is a criminal action lawsuit- I could be wrong though, so I'll wait for your bias to prove me guilty-


----------



## martybegan

BWK said:


> Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.



The more adjectives you use in the first few words of a post, the more we know it's nothing more than your delusions and idiocy.


----------



## postman

iceberg said:


> you once again SURPRISE are not answering the question.
> 
> changing how we vote is a legislature function. please see SEPARATION OF POWERS to help understand why we do this.



Setting the election law is the legislative function.  The actual carrying out of the election is a regulation bound function.  The election boards actually set most of the rules.  They decide how many polling places, the hours, and many of the other conditions which implement election law.


----------



## iceberg

postman said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> you once again SURPRISE are not answering the question.
> 
> changing how we vote is a legislature function. please see SEPARATION OF POWERS to help understand why we do this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Setting the election law is the legislative function.  The actual carrying out of the election is a regulation bound function.  The election boards actually set most of the rules.  They decide how many polling places, the hours, and many of the other conditions which implement election law.
Click to expand...

we will see if that is true or not. i would think the SCOTUS would scoff at the lawsuit vs. give states til today to respond.


----------



## postman

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There's no evidence of 'fraud.'
> 
> One cannot be hurt by that which doesn't exist.



Actually there is evidence of fraud.  Every election has some fraud, even if it's just one or two voting twice, or three people being registered in the wrong place.

What is missing is evidence of enough fraud to put in question the outcome of the election.  And in that they fall orders of magnitude short.

In one case the republicans were arguing about 151 ballots, where Biden held a 12,000 vote lead.   Even if they succeeded, the judge pointed out, it would in no way change the outcome of the election.


----------



## postman

iceberg said:


> we will see if that is true or not. i would think the SCOTUS would scoff at the lawsuit vs. give states til today to respond.



As you see in my previous post, the only action the USSC can take, is to invalidate the electors from those 4 states.  Even though highly unlikely, say that's a possibility. And doing that still doesn't give Trump a victory.  As I pointed out, it's whoever gets the majority of electors appointed.  And if the USSC throws out 62 electors, then whoever has 239 wins.

And Biden would still have 244.


----------



## danielpalos

Thunk said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas has no standing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do.
Click to expand...

Maybe, if they set the example by reviewing how they did their vote counting.


----------



## iceberg

postman said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> we will see if that is true or not. i would think the SCOTUS would scoff at the lawsuit vs. give states til today to respond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you see in my previous post, the only action the USSC can take, is to invalidate the electors from those 4 states.  Even though highly unlikely, say that's a possibility. And doing that still doesn't give Trump a victory.  As I pointed out, it's whoever gets the majority of electors appointed.  And if the USSC throws out 62 electors, then whoever has 239 wins.
> 
> And Biden would still have 244.
Click to expand...

great. we will see. not that i disagree, just going to see it through as to what happens. 

anyone who says they know what will happen from here is just wishing / hoping / projecting. we are in uncharted waters these days.


----------



## iceberg

postman said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no evidence of 'fraud.'
> 
> One cannot be hurt by that which doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there is evidence of fraud.  Every election has some fraud, even if it's just one or two voting twice, or three people being registered in the wrong place.
> 
> What is missing is evidence of enough fraud to put in question the outcome of the election.  And in that they fall orders of magnitude short.
> 
> In one case the republicans were arguing about 151 ballots, where Biden held a 12,000 vote lead.   Even if they succeeded, the judge pointed out, it would in no way change the outcome of the election.
Click to expand...

there are several down ballot races that are withing just a few votes. somehow, a month after the election, the D's are still finding ballots in drawers and so forth. how come the R's never find random boxes of ballots anywhere?

the fraud is there. there's just also enough media and people who hate trump screaming NOOOOO and throwing out disinformation to give people something to talk about.

in the end, no i don't know. i'll wait and see what the courts say.


----------



## postman

iceberg said:


> anyone who says they know what will happen from here is just wishing / hoping / projecting. we are in uncharted waters these days.


We clearly know the USSC has no power to appoint electors, so they can't award any to Trump, they can only take them from Biden.

And even if they take away the 62 contested electors, Biden still wins 244 to 232.


----------



## postman

iceberg said:


> there are several down ballot races that are withing just a few votes. somehow, a month after the election, the D's are still finding ballots in drawers and so forth. how come the R's never find random boxes of ballots anywhere?



They did in Georgia.  Or are you deaf dumb and blind?









						Recount finds thousands of Georgia votes missing from initial counts
					

With those votes now being counted, Joe Biden’s lead over Donald Trump was reduced to 12,781 votes.




					www.post-gazette.com
				




_Election workers in three counties discovered a total of more than 3,300 new votes stored on memory cards that hadn’t been loaded into election computers. A different issue in Floyd County led to another 2,600 ballots going unscanned.
_
*Mr. Trump gained about 1,400 votes that county election officials hadn’t tallied before the recount.*

Oh look. the republicans found votes.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

BWK said:


> Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.







Oh my!!!

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## bripat9643

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever read the articles?  Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and is was one of the things the Texas case said was an irregularity or illegal.
> 
> The SC won't take the case is my bet, or take it for some time down the road, where the people's choice of Biden is not affected.
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texans voted, Texans appointed their electors.  What another state does is none of their bee's wax, according to the constitution.... imo.  The people of those 4 states chose Biden, by landslides in most of them....there is no ambiguity.  The laws tweaked by the court rulings, truly matters naught...Biden, was chosen by their citizens to be our next president, in good faith....  they followed the election laws they were told were legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion isn't worth shit.  So if another state approves slavery, that's none of your business?  You realize that your fucking stupid, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no evidence of 'fraud.'
> 
> One cannot be hurt by that which doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Telling this lie 10,000 times will not make it true.


----------



## iceberg

postman said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are several down ballot races that are withing just a few votes. somehow, a month after the election, the D's are still finding ballots in drawers and so forth. how come the R's never find random boxes of ballots anywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did in Georgia.  Or are you deaf dumb and blind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recount finds thousands of Georgia votes missing from initial counts
> 
> 
> With those votes now being counted, Joe Biden’s lead over Donald Trump was reduced to 12,781 votes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.post-gazette.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Election workers in three counties discovered a total of more than 3,300 new votes stored on memory cards that hadn’t been loaded into election computers. A different issue in Floyd County led to another 2,600 ballots going unscanned._
> 
> *Mr. Trump gained about 1,400 votes that county election officials hadn’t tallied before the recount.*
> 
> Oh look. the republicans found votes.
Click to expand...

we were having a good discussion til you had to go start the insult parade.

if i was wrong, simply correct me. in my experience, the vast majority of "votes found" after an election go to the Democrats. i seldom see a R say "hey, these boxes of votes were left in this closet..."

but if this is how you discuss matters, great. i'll simply stop bothering.


----------



## bripat9643

postman said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> anyone who says they know what will happen from here is just wishing / hoping / projecting. we are in uncharted waters these days.
> 
> 
> 
> We clearly know the USSC has no power to appoint electors, so they can't award any to Trump, they can only take them from Biden.
> 
> And even if they take away the 62 contested electors, Biden still wins 244 to 232.
Click to expand...

You need 270 to win, moron.


----------



## postman

Care4all said:


> The constitution gives legislatures the power to choose the manner in which electors are chosen....  by the legislature voting themselves, or by the vote of the citizens, or by flipping a coin etc.
> 
> These legislatures chose to give up the legislature picking the electors, and gave it to the citizens to choose.



And having selected the method of choosing the electors, the legislature can't change the law in the middle of the election.  And they certainly can't change the law ex-post facto.

The method, whether the EC is chosen by the legislature, the voters, or by flipping a coin must remain in place.


----------



## iceberg

bripat9643 said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> anyone who says they know what will happen from here is just wishing / hoping / projecting. we are in uncharted waters these days.
> 
> 
> 
> We clearly know the USSC has no power to appoint electors, so they can't award any to Trump, they can only take them from Biden.
> 
> And even if they take away the 62 contested electors, Biden still wins 244 to 232.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need 270 to win, moron.
Click to expand...

yea, i wasn't going to get into that with him once he showed troll colors.






						Contingent election - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



.

"A candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) to win the presidency or the vice presidency. If no candidate receives a majority in the election for president or vice president, that election is determined via a contingency procedure established by the 12th Amendment."

doesn't say shit about the most wins, it says 270.

better troll, but still he's just a troll now.


----------



## postman

iceberg said:


> how come the R's never find random boxes of ballots anywhere?





postman said:


> They did in Georgia.  Or are you deaf dumb and blind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recount finds thousands of Georgia votes missing from initial counts
> 
> 
> With those votes now being counted, Joe Biden’s lead over Donald Trump was reduced to 12,781 votes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.post-gazette.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Election workers in three counties discovered a total of more than 3,300 new votes stored on memory cards that hadn’t been loaded into election computers. A different issue in Floyd County led to another 2,600 ballots going unscanned._
> 
> *Mr. Trump gained about 1,400 votes that county election officials hadn’t tallied before the recount.*
> 
> Oh look. the republicans found votes.





iceberg said:


> we were having a good discussion til you had to go start the insult parade.



You started by insulting my intelligence, saying that republicans never found any votes.  When it's obvious to anyone who read about the Georgia recount, that republicans did indeed find "missing" ballots that helped Trump.

So stop the "oh i'm insulted" bullshit.  You played the "only democrats do that" card, and lost.


----------



## postman

iceberg said:


> but if this is how you discuss matters, great. i'll simply stop bothering.



I discuss using facts.  If you claim republicans didn't find missing ballots (hey you forgot to count these) that helped Trump, you might as well crawl under a rock.


----------



## iceberg

postman said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> how come the R's never find random boxes of ballots anywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did in Georgia.  Or are you deaf dumb and blind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recount finds thousands of Georgia votes missing from initial counts
> 
> 
> With those votes now being counted, Joe Biden’s lead over Donald Trump was reduced to 12,781 votes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.post-gazette.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Election workers in three counties discovered a total of more than 3,300 new votes stored on memory cards that hadn’t been loaded into election computers. A different issue in Floyd County led to another 2,600 ballots going unscanned._
> 
> *Mr. Trump gained about 1,400 votes that county election officials hadn’t tallied before the recount.*
> 
> Oh look. the republicans found votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> we were having a good discussion til you had to go start the insult parade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You started by insulting my intelligence, saying that republicans never found any votes.  When it's obvious to anyone who read about the Georgia recount, that republicans did indeed find "missing" ballots that helped Trump.
> 
> So stop the "oh i'm insulted" bullshit.  You played the "only democrats do that" card, and lost.
Click to expand...

in my mind they seldom do. you pointed out an instance - ONE instance and that hardly invalidates my thoughts on the matter from 50+ years of watching elections.

and we were talking. i gave you my viewpoint. as for insulting your intelligence, that simply isn't possible, man.

have a day. you're banished to troll-ville.


----------



## postman

bripat9643 said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And even if they take away the 62 contested electors, Biden still wins 244 to 232.
> 
> 
> 
> You need 270 to win, moron.
Click to expand...

The constitution says a majority of electors appointed.
With 270 based on the expectation of there being 538, which is subject to change.


----------



## postman

iceberg said:


> "A candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes *(currently 270) *to win the presidency or the vice presidency.



And if the USSC invalidates 62 of them?  Then there will only be 476 appointed.


----------



## postman

iceberg said:


> doesn't say shit about the most wins, it says 270.
> 
> better troll, but still he's just a troll now.



12th amendment

_The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President,_* if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;*


----------



## postman

iceberg said:


> how come the R's never find random boxes of ballots anywhere?



You said "NEVER", as in.....  NEVER.


iceberg said:


> in my mind *they seldom do*. you pointed out an instance - ONE instance



There is never and there is seldom.

As Winston Churchill said "We shall NEVER surrender"

Not we will SELDOM surrender.


----------



## postman

Robert E. Lee never surrendered.

Oh correction, he seldom surrendered.  He only did it ONCE.

So that doesn't count.


----------



## postman

iceberg said:


> how come the R's never find random boxes of ballots anywhere?



Anakin Skywalker: If you're not with me, then you're my enemy! 

Obi-Wan Kenobi: Only a *Sith* deals in *absolutes*;


----------



## my2¢

These election lawsuits have all become inconsequential.  Just as Trump will be in 41 days.


----------



## bripat9643

postman said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no evidence of 'fraud.'
> 
> One cannot be hurt by that which doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there is evidence of fraud.  Every election has some fraud, even if it's just one or two voting twice, or three people being registered in the wrong place.
> 
> What is missing is evidence of enough fraud to put in question the outcome of the election.  And in that they fall orders of magnitude short.
> 
> In one case the republicans were arguing about 151 ballots, where Biden held a 12,000 vote lead.   Even if they succeeded, the judge pointed out, it would in no way change the outcome of the election.
Click to expand...

There's actually a whole lot more fraud than that.  Dims have been stuffing the ballot box for decades.


----------



## bripat9643

postman said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> how come the R's never find random boxes of ballots anywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anakin Skywalker: If you're not with me, then you're my enemy!
> 
> Obi-Wan Kenobi: Only a *Sith* deals in *absolutes*;
Click to expand...

You don't want to answer the question, eh?


----------



## Faun

postman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And even if they take away the 62 contested electors, Biden still wins 244 to 232.
> 
> 
> 
> You need 270 to win, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The constitution says a majority of electors appointed.
> With 270 based on the expectation of there being 538, which is subject to change.
Click to expand...

You're trying to educate morons. Good luck to ya!


----------



## bripat9643

postman said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution gives legislatures the power to choose the manner in which electors are chosen....  by the legislature voting themselves, or by the vote of the citizens, or by flipping a coin etc.
> 
> These legislatures chose to give up the legislature picking the electors, and gave it to the citizens to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And having selected the method of choosing the electors, the legislature can't change the law in the middle of the election.  And they certainly can't change the law ex-post facto.
> 
> The method, whether the EC is chosen by the legislature, the voters, or by flipping a coin must remain in place.
Click to expand...

Yes they can.  The legislature is the only entity that can change the law any time it wants to


----------



## Dragonlady

postman said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution gives legislatures the power to choose the manner in which electors are chosen....  by the legislature voting themselves, or by the vote of the citizens, or by flipping a coin etc.
> 
> These legislatures chose to give up the legislature picking the electors, and gave it to the citizens to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And having selected the method of choosing the electors, the legislature can't change the law in the middle of the election.  And they certainly can't change the law ex-post facto.
> 
> The method, whether the EC is chosen by the legislature, the voters, or by flipping a coin must remain in place.
Click to expand...


All of the claims being made in the Texas law suit have been litigated at the lower court level and tossed out of court as lacking merit or evidence.  This lawsuit will be tossed out too.  This is simply a stunt whereby the Texas AG, who is currently under indictment in Texas, is angling for one of those pardons that Dumb Donald is giving out on his way out the door.


----------



## bripat9643

postman said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes *(currently 270) *to win the presidency or the vice presidency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the USSC invalidates 62 of them?  Then there will only be 476 appointed.
Click to expand...

No one agrees with you, turd.


----------



## bripat9643

Dragonlady said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution gives legislatures the power to choose the manner in which electors are chosen....  by the legislature voting themselves, or by the vote of the citizens, or by flipping a coin etc.
> 
> These legislatures chose to give up the legislature picking the electors, and gave it to the citizens to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And having selected the method of choosing the electors, the legislature can't change the law in the middle of the election.  And they certainly can't change the law ex-post facto.
> 
> The method, whether the EC is chosen by the legislature, the voters, or by flipping a coin must remain in place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of the claims being made in the Texas law suit have been litigated at the lower court level and tossed out of court as lacking merit or evidence.  This lawsuit will be tossed out too.  This is simply a stunt whereby the Texas AG, who is currently under indictment in Texas, is angling for one of those pardons that Dumb Donald is giving out on his way out the door.
Click to expand...

<YAWN!>


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, nothing illegal about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does the state law of Michigan allow mail-in voting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you ever not a fucking moron?
> 
> Ever???
> 
> * Section 168.759*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's absentee voting, moron.  You've been told about the difference over 1000 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Fucking moron, Michigan changed that law in December, 2018, removing the requirement that an excuse is needed to vote absentee. Now any Michigan resident registered voter can vote absentee with no excuse.
> 
> So you just lied again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They still need to request a ballot.  That isn't what Michigan did.
Click to expand...

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???









						Absentee voting allows you to vote by mail
					






					www.michigan.gov
				




All registered voters are eligible to vote by mail

Due to the passage of the statewide ballot proposal 18-3, all eligible and registered voters in Michigan may now request an absent voter ballot without providing a reason.​


----------



## Dragonlady

bripat9643 said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution gives legislatures the power to choose the manner in which electors are chosen....  by the legislature voting themselves, or by the vote of the citizens, or by flipping a coin etc.
> 
> These legislatures chose to give up the legislature picking the electors, and gave it to the citizens to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And having selected the method of choosing the electors, the legislature can't change the law in the middle of the election.  And they certainly can't change the law ex-post facto.
> 
> The method, whether the EC is chosen by the legislature, the voters, or by flipping a coin must remain in place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they can.  The legislature is the only entity that can change the law any time it wants to
Click to expand...


No it can't.  The legislature can't change the rules the day before an election, nor can they change them AFTER the election has already occurred, which is what Texas seems to be asking the SC to do - change the rules of the election in these 4 states, AFTER the public has voted.

The whole suit is laughable.


----------



## Dragonlady

bripat9643 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution gives legislatures the power to choose the manner in which electors are chosen....  by the legislature voting themselves, or by the vote of the citizens, or by flipping a coin etc.
> 
> These legislatures chose to give up the legislature picking the electors, and gave it to the citizens to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And having selected the method of choosing the electors, the legislature can't change the law in the middle of the election.  And they certainly can't change the law ex-post facto.
> 
> The method, whether the EC is chosen by the legislature, the voters, or by flipping a coin must remain in place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of the claims being made in the Texas law suit have been litigated at the lower court level and tossed out of court as lacking merit or evidence.  This lawsuit will be tossed out too.  This is simply a stunt whereby the Texas AG, who is currently under indictment in Texas, is angling for one of those pardons that Dumb Donald is giving out on his way out the door.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <YAWN!>
Click to expand...


Yet you felt the need to respond?  What are you going to do when the suit is tossed, FingerBoi?


----------



## Dogbiscuit

At minimum I hope the USSC considers what is proposed toward the end of this video starting at the 2:30 minute mark.








						Dick Morris to Newsmax TV: Lawsuit to Overturn Election by Texas AG Paxton 'Brilliant'
					

Political strategist Dick Morris calls Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's lawsuit with the Supreme Court seeking to invalidate Joe Biden's election victory "absolutely brilliant."...




					www.newsmax.com
				











						Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



So that we dont have these issues in the future.


----------



## BlackSand

Dragonlady said:


> All of the claims being made in the Texas law suit have been litigated at the lower court level and tossed out of court as lacking merit or evidence.  This lawsuit will be tossed out too.  This is simply a stunt whereby the Texas AG, who is currently under indictment in Texas, is angling for one of those pardons that Dumb Donald is giving out on his way out the door.



That's why they took it to the Supreme Court.
It is not a requirement to go through lower courts, if the case involves discrepancies or conflicts between 2 or more States.
In this case ... It a conflict between more than two states.

.


----------



## bripat9643

Dragonlady said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution gives legislatures the power to choose the manner in which electors are chosen....  by the legislature voting themselves, or by the vote of the citizens, or by flipping a coin etc.
> 
> These legislatures chose to give up the legislature picking the electors, and gave it to the citizens to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And having selected the method of choosing the electors, the legislature can't change the law in the middle of the election.  And they certainly can't change the law ex-post facto.
> 
> The method, whether the EC is chosen by the legislature, the voters, or by flipping a coin must remain in place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of the claims being made in the Texas law suit have been litigated at the lower court level and tossed out of court as lacking merit or evidence.  This lawsuit will be tossed out too.  This is simply a stunt whereby the Texas AG, who is currently under indictment in Texas, is angling for one of those pardons that Dumb Donald is giving out on his way out the door.
Click to expand...


----------



## postman

bripat9643 said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The method, whether the EC is chosen by the legislature, the voters, or by flipping a coin must remain in place.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they can.  The legislature is the only entity that can change the law any time it wants to
Click to expand...


Really.  Then why doesn't the legislature they just change the rule so that the person with the second most votes wins all the states electors.

You said they could change the rules at any time.  And that would be a simple rule change.


----------



## iceberg

postman said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> how come the R's never find random boxes of ballots anywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anakin Skywalker: If you're not with me, then you're my enemy!
> 
> Obi-Wan Kenobi: Only a *Sith* deals in *absolutes*;
Click to expand...

gee - and to think up until a few minutes ago i gave you credit for not being a troll.

my mistake. i SELDOM make those.

now bugger off.


----------



## bripat9643

bripat9643 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution gives legislatures the power to choose the manner in which electors are chosen....  by the legislature voting themselves, or by the vote of the citizens, or by flipping a coin etc.
> 
> These legislatures chose to give up the legislature picking the electors, and gave it to the citizens to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And having selected the method of choosing the electors, the legislature can't change the law in the middle of the election.  And they certainly can't change the law ex-post facto.
> 
> The method, whether the EC is chosen by the legislature, the voters, or by flipping a coin must remain in place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of the claims being made in the Texas law suit have been litigated at the lower court level and tossed out of court as lacking merit or evidence.  This lawsuit will be tossed out too.  This is simply a stunt whereby the Texas AG, who is currently under indictment in Texas, is angling for one of those pardons that Dumb Donald is giving out on his way out the door.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## postman

BlackSand said:


> That's why they took it to the Supreme Court.
> It is not a requirement to go through lower courts, if the case involves discrepancies or conflicts between 2 or more States.
> In this case ... It a conflict between more than two states.
> 
> .



Actually there is no conflict.  Georgia voted how they wanted to vote, and Texas voted how they wanted to vote.

This is like gay marriage.  One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state.  They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.


----------



## bripat9643

Dragonlady said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution gives legislatures the power to choose the manner in which electors are chosen....  by the legislature voting themselves, or by the vote of the citizens, or by flipping a coin etc.
> 
> These legislatures chose to give up the legislature picking the electors, and gave it to the citizens to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And having selected the method of choosing the electors, the legislature can't change the law in the middle of the election.  And they certainly can't change the law ex-post facto.
> 
> The method, whether the EC is chosen by the legislature, the voters, or by flipping a coin must remain in place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they can.  The legislature is the only entity that can change the law any time it wants to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it can't.  The legislature can't change the rules the day before an election, nor can they change them AFTER the election has already occurred, which is what Texas seems to be asking the SC to do - change the rules of the election in these 4 states, AFTER the public has voted.
> 
> The whole suit is laughable.
Click to expand...

Yes it can.


----------



## bripat9643

postman said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why they took it to the Supreme Court.
> It is not a requirement to go through lower courts, if the case involves discrepancies or conflicts between 2 or more States.
> In this case ... It a conflict between more than two states.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there is no conflict.  Georgia voted how they wanted to vote, and Texas voted how they wanted to vote.
> 
> This is like gay marriage.  One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state.  They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.
Click to expand...

Then why did we end up making gay marriage legal across the entire country?

Something seems to be wrong with your theory.


----------



## BlindBoo

postman said:


> I don't know what the lawsuit is asking for, because they've already gone PAST the "safe harbor"  If they invalidate the EC votes of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia, Trump still won't win.
> 
> Remember, it's not a race to 270, it's a race to the majority of elector appointed.  If they decertify 62 electors, than the total drops from 538 to 476 and you now need 239 to win.
> Biden had 306, minus  62 gives him 244
> 
> 244 is still more than the 239 needed to win.
> 
> It's simple math.



The Texas Gov. made changes too and was sued by the Texas Legislature over it..  So the SC should also Drop Texas from the total as well.  I understand a total of 30 state made minor administrative changes due to the


----------



## Dogbiscuit

postman said:


> This is like gay marriage. One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state. They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.


The problem with your analogy, is that normal people that live in those states, that allow gay marriage, dont want things shoved up their anus. They want to love and protect their children's future.
Same applies for their votes.


----------



## bripat9643

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
> 
> People calling it fraud are way off base.
> 
> Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
> 
> After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
> 
> I do not think so.
> 
> And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
> 
> Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
> 
> There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever read the articles?  Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and is was one of the things the Texas case said was an irregularity or illegal.
> 
> The SC won't take the case is my bet, or take it for some time down the road, where the people's choice of Biden is not affected.
> 
> The states are not hurt by how the  other states run their elections.  They have no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texans voted, Texans appointed their electors.  What another state does is none of their bee's wax, according to the constitution.... imo.  The people of those 4 states chose Biden, by landslides in most of them....there is no ambiguity.  The laws tweaked by the court rulings, truly matters naught...Biden, was chosen by their citizens to be our next president, in good faith....  they followed the election laws they were told were legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion isn't worth shit.  So if another state approves slavery, that's none of your business?  You realize that your fucking stupid, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no evidence of 'fraud.'
> 
> One cannot be hurt by that which doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


----------



## postman

postman said:


> This is like gay marriage.  One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state.  They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.





bripat9643 said:


> Then why did we end up making gay marriage legal across the entire country?



States sued, saying that gay marriage was invalid.  Just like Texas is suing that the vote in Georgia in invalid.

But as you pointed out, instead of invalidating the other states rules, they forced all the states to accept them.

Privileges and immunities, Vs Equal protection


----------



## postman

bripat9643 said:


> Yes they can.  The legislature is the only entity that can change the law any time it wants to





Dragonlady said:


> No it can't.  The legislature can't change the rules the day before an election, nor can they change them AFTER the election has already occurred, which is what Texas seems to be asking the SC to do - change the rules of the election in these 4 states, AFTER the public has voted.
> 
> The whole suit is laughable.





bripat9643 said:


> Yes it can.



Even Bush v Gore said that they can't change the law during an election cycle.


----------



## postman

BlindBoo said:


> The Texas Gov. made changes too and was sued by the Texas Legislature over it..  So the SC should also Drop Texas from the total as well.  I understand a total of 30 state made minor administrative changes due to the


I pointed out that many states, when they granted the chief executive "extra powers" during a declared emergency, that was part of the mechanism that legislature set up to handle elections.  Think of it like giving somebody unqualified power of attorney.

Anything you can do, they can do in your name, just as if you did them yourself.


----------



## colfax_m

Dogbiscuit said:


> At minimum I hope the USSC considers what is proposed toward the end of this video starting at the 2:30 minute mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Morris to Newsmax TV: Lawsuit to Overturn Election by Texas AG Paxton 'Brilliant'
> 
> 
> Political strategist Dick Morris calls Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's lawsuit with the Supreme Court seeking to invalidate Joe Biden's election victory "absolutely brilliant."...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsmax.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that we dont have these issues in the future.


Dick Morris's statements here are gibberish. 

“It also puts the court squarely on notice that the case is about unequal treatment of the laws, that a voter in Texas had one set of rules and a voter in Pennsylvania had another set. While the state has the right to set those rules, they don’t have the right to basically devalue the Texans’ vote and throw it out by replacing it with a phony Biden vote.”

So, wait, the constitution says that each state set's it's own rules, so it's not actually about unequal treatment of the laws because the laws are different in different states. Complete gibberish. 

The electoral college vote for Biden isn't "phony", it's very real by a very real elector and with very real authority to do so.


----------



## Lesh

Dogbiscuit said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is like gay marriage. One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state. They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your analogy, is that normal people that live in those states, that allow gay marriage, dont want things shoved up their anus. They want to love and protect their children's future.
> Same applies for their votes.
Click to expand...

You can shove your vote up your ass if you want to.


----------



## Lesh

Again. The SC had held that "the Legislature" can be broadly interpreted to mean the voters, or any state entity (the Governor, a Commission etc.)

See ... ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION


----------



## Dogbiscuit

colfax_m said:


> Dogbiscuit said:
> 
> 
> 
> At minimum I hope the USSC considers what is proposed toward the end of this video starting at the 2:30 minute mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Morris to Newsmax TV: Lawsuit to Overturn Election by Texas AG Paxton 'Brilliant'
> 
> 
> Political strategist Dick Morris calls Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's lawsuit with the Supreme Court seeking to invalidate Joe Biden's election victory "absolutely brilliant."...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsmax.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that we dont have these issues in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Morris's statements here are gibberish.
> 
> “It also puts the court squarely on notice that the case is about unequal treatment of the laws, that a voter in Texas had one set of rules and a voter in Pennsylvania had another set. While the state has the right to set those rules, they don’t have the right to basically devalue the Texans’ vote and throw it out by replacing it with a phony Biden vote.”
> 
> So, wait, the constitution says that each state set's it's own rules, so it's not actually about unequal treatment of the laws because the laws are different in different states. Complete gibberish.
> 
> The electoral college vote for Biden isn't "phony", it's very real by a very real elector and with very real authority to do so.
Click to expand...

Did you not catch the part where he proposes this after the election ?
This problem with states suing states is setting a precedent, and will likely happen again. There is obviously flaws and fraud in different states, so would you by chance have a proposition that might improve or exceed this so called gibberish ?


----------



## BlackSand

postman said:


> Actually there is no conflict.  Georgia voted how they wanted to vote, and Texas voted how they wanted to vote.
> 
> This is like gay marriage.  One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state.  They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.



Actually there is a conflict ... And it has nothing to do with gay marriage.
The States filing the case with Supreme Court don't have a problem with Georgia or the other States voting the way their State Legislatures decide to vote.

The conflict is that the States in question did not follow laws passed by their State Legislatures as required by the US Constitution.
A State Governor, or State Court, cannot dictate election policy, and only the State Legislatures can, and through legislation.

Secondary ... The dictates were not followed/enforced equally by all precincts within each State in question.
That violates the Equal Protection Under the Law in regards to the vote and Articles in the Election Rights Act.


----------



## postman

postman said:


> This is like gay marriage. One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state. They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.





Dogbiscuit said:


> The problem with your analogy, is that normal people that live in those states, that allow gay marriage, dont want things shoved up their anus. They want to love and protect their children's future.
> Same applies for their votes.



The analogy holds.  With gay marriage it started when one state expanded the definition of marriage.  Just like with voting, when states expanded the conditions of their elections

In both cases, states objected to the expansions, and sued to invalidate them.  But in the end  the USSC said that gay marriage in one state in no way harmed the marriages in another state, and using privileges and immunities, expanded gay marriage to all the states.

Why would it be no different when states expand voting?

It in no way harms the votes from the other states.

(p.s. that's what happened in the gay marriage argument)


----------



## Dogbiscuit

Lesh said:


> Dogbiscuit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is like gay marriage. One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state. They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your analogy, is that normal people that live in those states, that allow gay marriage, dont want things shoved up their anus. They want to love and protect their children's future.
> Same applies for their votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can shove your vote up your ass if you want to.
Click to expand...

Ahhhwww thats so sweet, but no thank you.
Mine is programmed for exit only.
Im sorry, I didnt know you were mentally disturbed.


----------



## Lesh

BlackSand said:


> A State Governor, or Court, cannot dictate election policy, and only the State Legislatures can.



Wrong See  ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION 


BlackSand said:


> That violates the Equal Protection under law in regards to the vote and Articles in the Election Rights Act.



You do not want to use the Equal Protection argument. 

That would require national elections taking that power away from the states


----------



## postman

colfax_m said:


> Dick Morris's statements here are gibberish.
> 
> “It also puts the court squarely on notice that the case is about unequal treatment of the laws, that a voter in Texas had one set of rules and a voter in Pennsylvania had another set. While the state has the right to set those rules, they don’t have the right to basically devalue the Texans’ vote and throw it out by replacing it with a phony Biden vote.”
> 
> So, wait, the constitution says that each state set's it's own rules, so it's not actually about unequal treatment of the laws because the laws are different in different states. Complete gibberish.
> 
> The electoral college vote for Biden isn't "phony", it's very real by a very real elector and with very real authority to do so.



A state could regress to having the legislature directly choose the electors, so their people don't get to vote at all, and that would be perfectly legal.   And a state can't claim unequal treatment because the voters of the two states are treated opposite.


----------



## Care4all

iceberg said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution gives legislatures the power to choose the manner in which electors are chosen....  by the legislature voting themselves, or by the vote of the citizens, or by flipping a coin etc.
> 
> These legislatures chose to give up the legislature picking the electors, and gave it to the citizens to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> But the legislature did NOT approve or vote on the changes.
> 
> If they did, show me. Otherwise just stop the bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The duty was to decide if their legislature was going to choose the electors, if not, then who?  All of our different legislatures chose the citizens vote would determine and choose their electors.  Thats the "manner" in which they are chosen that the constitution speaks of....  once this is chosen, the constitutional requirement is fulfilled.
> 
> The US constitution does not govern the finer details of how an election process is done within each state.
> 
> The Texas case has no Constitutional standing.
> 
> Michiganders etc. can argue about their own processes not being followed in their own State courts.... but the US constitutional mandate of their legislatures choosing the "manner" of electing their electors, thru the citizen's vote, instead of the legislature's vote, was fulfilled, in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you once again SURPRISE are not answering the question.
> 
> changing how we vote is a legislature function. please see SEPARATION OF POWERS to help understand why we do this.
> 
> now - please show me where these states did in fact go through their LEGISLATURE to make these changes.
> 
> all you gotta do. anything is else a shitshow distraction that i am simply not going to chase down.
Click to expand...

Thats a State legal issue, the legislature can sue, the State Courts can decide if it broke their state laws or constitution on elections.

In Pennsylvania, the State Supreme Court ruled the changes made by the State for this election instead of the legislature did not.

The trump appeal to the SCOTUS, was unanimously denied a couple of days ago.


----------



## Dogbiscuit

postman said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is like gay marriage. One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state. They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogbiscuit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your analogy, is that normal people that live in those states, that allow gay marriage, dont want things shoved up their anus. They want to love and protect their children's future.
> Same applies for their votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The analogy holds.  With gay marriage it started when one state expanded the definition of marriage.  Just like with voting, when states expanded the conditions of their elections
> 
> In both cases, states objected to the expansions, and sued to invalidate them.  But in the end  the USSC said that gay marriage in one state in no way harmed the marriages in another state, and using privileges and immunities, expanded gay marriage to all the states.
> 
> Why would it be no different when states expand voting?
> 
> It in no way harms the votes from the other states.
> 
> (p.s. that's what happened in the gay marriage argument)
Click to expand...

Plain and simple, its a mental disease and disorder.
Our voting system is corrupted as well.
Both need to be fixed.
Here, please feel free to spread the word...








						Homosexuals Anonymous - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## iceberg

BlackSand said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there is no conflict.  Georgia voted how they wanted to vote, and Texas voted how they wanted to vote.
> 
> This is like gay marriage.  One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state.  They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there is a conflict ... And it has nothing to do with gay marriage.
> The States filing the case with Supreme Court don't have a problem with Georgia or the other States voting the way their State Legislatures decide to vote.
> 
> The conflict is that the States in question did not follow laws passed by their State Legislatures as required by the US Constitution.
> A State Governor, or State Court, cannot dictate election policy, and only the State Legislatures can, and through legislation.
> 
> Secondary ... The dictates were not followed/enforced equally by all precincts within each State in question.
> That violates the Equal Protection Under the Law in regards to the vote and Articles in the Election Rights Act.
Click to expand...

ooo - nice. that's gonna leave a mark.


----------



## iceberg

Care4all said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution gives legislatures the power to choose the manner in which electors are chosen....  by the legislature voting themselves, or by the vote of the citizens, or by flipping a coin etc.
> 
> These legislatures chose to give up the legislature picking the electors, and gave it to the citizens to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> But the legislature did NOT approve or vote on the changes.
> 
> If they did, show me. Otherwise just stop the bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The duty was to decide if their legislature was going to choose the electors, if not, then who?  All of our different legislatures chose the citizens vote would determine and choose their electors.  Thats the "manner" in which they are chosen that the constitution speaks of....  once this is chosen, the constitutional requirement is fulfilled.
> 
> The US constitution does not govern the finer details of how an election process is done within each state.
> 
> The Texas case has no Constitutional standing.
> 
> Michiganders etc. can argue about their own processes not being followed in their own State courts.... but the US constitutional mandate of their legislatures choosing the "manner" of electing their electors, thru the citizen's vote, instead of the legislature's vote, was fulfilled, in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you once again SURPRISE are not answering the question.
> 
> changing how we vote is a legislature function. please see SEPARATION OF POWERS to help understand why we do this.
> 
> now - please show me where these states did in fact go through their LEGISLATURE to make these changes.
> 
> all you gotta do. anything is else a shitshow distraction that i am simply not going to chase down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a State legal issue, the legislature can sue, the State Courts can decide if it broke their state laws or constitution on elections.
> 
> In Pennsylvania, the State Supreme Court ruled the changes made by the State for this election instead of the legislature did not.
> 
> The trump appeal to the SCOTUS, was unanimously denied a couple of days ago.
Click to expand...

this isn't trumps appeal now is it? they denied that one and took this one on.

stop projecting fantasies.


----------



## bripat9643

postman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they can.  The legislature is the only entity that can change the law any time it wants to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it can't.  The legislature can't change the rules the day before an election, nor can they change them AFTER the election has already occurred, which is what Texas seems to be asking the SC to do - change the rules of the election in these 4 states, AFTER the public has voted.
> 
> The whole suit is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even Bush v Gore said that they can't change the law during an election cycle.
Click to expand...

That isn't what Bush v. Gore ruled.


----------



## postman

BlackSand said:


> The conflict is that the States in question did not follow laws passed by their State Legislatures as required by the US Constitution.
> 
> 
> A State Governor, or State Court, cannot dictate election policy, and only the State Legislatures can, and through legislation.



You ignored the answer.


Lesh said:


> Wrong See  ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION


----------



## Lesh

Dogbiscuit said:


> Did you not catch the part where he proposes this after the election ?


And that's an important point.

In order to rule in favor of this lawsuit the SC would have to usurp an election that has already been held. Then what? Force a new election?

Highly unlikely that the SC would do that, especially to protect friggin Trump


----------



## BlackSand

Lesh said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> A State Governor, or Court, cannot dictate election policy, and only the State Legislatures can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong See  ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> That violates the Equal Protection under law in regards to the vote and Articles in the Election Rights Act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not want to use the Equal Protection argument.
> 
> That would require national elections taking that power away from the states
Click to expand...


Arizona isn't listed as a State in suit.
And ... It doesn't take the power away from the States ... It simply says that every Precinct within the State has to follow the same rules.

Don't argue ... You are simply wrong ... 

.


----------



## BlackSand

postman said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict is that the States in question did not follow laws passed by their State Legislatures as required by the US Constitution.
> 
> 
> A State Governor, or State Court, cannot dictate election policy, and only the State Legislatures can, and through legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ignored the answer.
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong See  ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Arizona isn't the answer and isn't listed ... You are wrong ... 

.


----------



## bripat9643

postman said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is like gay marriage. One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state. They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogbiscuit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your analogy, is that normal people that live in those states, that allow gay marriage, dont want things shoved up their anus. They want to love and protect their children's future.
> Same applies for their votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The analogy holds.  With gay marriage it started when one state expanded the definition of marriage.  Just like with voting, when states expanded the conditions of their elections
> 
> In both cases, states objected to the expansions, and sued to invalidate them.  But in the end  the USSC said that gay marriage in one state in no way harmed the marriages in another state, and using privileges and immunities, expanded gay marriage to all the states.
> 
> Why would it be no different when states expand voting?
> 
> It in no way harms the votes from the other states.
> 
> (p.s. that's what happened in the gay marriage argument)
Click to expand...

The ruling on gay marriage was utter horseshit and obviously wrong.   Your descroption of what happened is wrong.


----------



## Lesh

bripat9643 said:


> That isn't what Bush v. Gore ruled.


You totally misunderstand or misinterpret G v B. It used equal protection as its "basis" and even there said that it should not be used as precedent (because it would invalidate every election held until we have a national statute on elections)

But then you are stupid and dishonest so...


----------



## postman

BlackSand said:


> Secondary ... The dictates were not followed/enforced equally by all precincts within each State in question.
> That violates the Equal Protection Under the Law in regards to the vote and Articles in the Election Rights Act.


Actually the 4th and 9th circuit are dealing with that right now.  The original judgement was that there was an equal protection argument.  But that was overturned because there is no legal remedy to equal protection violations.  

Example, if one town has an average police or fire, or EMT response time twice that of the town next door.  Can they sue for equal protection.  Force their town to give them the same protection as the town next door?

The court used the legal maxim, where there is no remedy, there is no right.  If the court can't fix it, you have no right to it.

And demanding the votes in every county in the country be handled equally is beyond what a court has jurisdiction to order.


----------



## Dogbiscuit

Lesh said:


> Dogbiscuit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not catch the part where he proposes this after the election ?
> 
> 
> 
> And that's an important point.
> 
> In order to rule in favor of this lawsuit the SC would have to usurp an election that has already been held. Then what? Force a new election?
> 
> Highly unlikely that the SC would do that, especially to protect friggin Trump
Click to expand...

I didnt say I had the answers, did I ?
My question remains, since this case of suing is going to set a precedent for the future, then what might be a solution ?
We have an issue with fraud, or we wouldnt be where we are right now.


----------



## Lesh

BlackSand said:


> Arizona isn't the answer and isn't listed ... You are wrong ...


The fuck are you babbling about. It ruled on what "the legislature" means


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> Dogbiscuit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not catch the part where he proposes this after the election ?
> 
> 
> 
> And that's an important point.
> 
> In order to rule in favor of this lawsuit the SC would have to usurp an election that has already been held. Then what? Force a new election?
> 
> Highly unlikely that the SC would do that, especially to protect friggin Trump
Click to expand...

Then what:  the election goes to Congress where each state has one vote.


----------



## BlackSand

Lesh said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona isn't the answer and isn't listed ... You are wrong ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fuck are you babbling about. It ruled on what "the legislature" means
Click to expand...


You're the one babbling about Arizona and Arizona isn't included in the case.
Quit arguing, you are wring and are going to keep  being wrong ...   

.


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what Bush v. Gore ruled.
> 
> 
> 
> You totally misunderstand or misinterpret G v B. It used equal protection as its "basis" and even there said that it should not be used as precedent (because it would invalidate every election held until we have a national statute on elections)
> 
> But then you are stupid and dishonest so...
Click to expand...

Dragonlady said the SC ruled that Florida couldn't change their election law at the last minute.  I rightly pointed out that she's full of shit.  Now you're saying she claimed something different.

You're also full of shit.


----------



## Lesh

BlackSand said:


> Arizona isn't listed as a State in suit.


It doesn't need to be stupid. That case set precedent


bripat9643 said:


> Then what: the election goes to Congress where each state has one vote.



Trumpers are praying to delay and fuck things up enough to force that (predetermined) remedy


----------



## iceberg

people really don't get it.

no one has to prove any specific instances of fraud.  no one has to PROVE the states did something wrong. what the states did to scuttle their own election laws is all on the record. Its just now up to scotus to decide what to do about it.

all the dimestore lawyers in here aren't worth the dime in this case. just prattling on as if they're a judge or do this for a living between cleaning the fryer and scraping off the grill.


----------



## BlackSand

postman said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secondary ... The dictates were not followed/enforced equally by all precincts within each State in question.
> That violates the Equal Protection Under the Law in regards to the vote and Articles in the Election Rights Act.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the 4th and 9th circuit are dealing with that right now.  The original judgement was that there was an equal protection argument.  But that was overturned because there is no legal remedy to equal protection violations.
> 
> Example, if one town has an average police or fire, or EMT response time twice that of the town next door.  Can they sue for equal protection.  Force their town to give them the same protection as the town next door?
> 
> The court used the legal maxim, where there is no remedy, there is no right.  If the court can't fix it, you have no right to it.
> 
> And demanding the votes in every county in the country be handled equally is beyond what a court has jurisdiction to order.
Click to expand...


The 4th and 9th Circuit court cannot overrule the Supreme Court.
Texas took the case to the Supreme Court and it doesn't matter what the 4th and 9th do.

They have every right to take the case to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court can decide to hear it.
It's also not a demand that every Precinct be handled in the same manner ... It's the law ...  

.


----------



## Lesh

BlackSand said:


> You're the one babbling about Arizona and Arizona isn't included in the case.
> Quit arguing, you are wring and are going to keep being wrong


I'm "babbling" about a case from Arizona (listed above) that set precedent for what the SC considers "the Legislature" to be. If you are too stupid to understand that just stop talking


----------



## BlackSand

Lesh said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one babbling about Arizona and Arizona isn't included in the case.
> Quit arguing, you are wring and are going to keep being wrong
> 
> 
> 
> I'm "babbling" about a case from Arizona (listed above) that set precedent for what the SC considers "the Legislature" to be. If you are too stupid to understand that just stop talking
Click to expand...


Arizona doesn't set precedence for the Supreme Court when ruling on the Constitutionality.
It's not that I am too stupid to understand what you are saying, just that what you are saying doesn't apply to the case in question.

.


----------



## Lesh

This is like a team with one second left on their own ten and behind by 20 points throwing a Hail Mary

Not gonna happen. Kinda sad actually

Just take a knee


----------



## postman

BlackSand said:


> Arizona isn't listed as a State in suit.
> And ... It doesn't take the power away from the States ... It simply says that every Precinct within the State has to follow the same rules.
> 
> Don't argue ... You are simply wrong ...



You are wrong.  Circuit courts have clearly said that in order for every precinct to follow the same rules, they would have to use the same equipment, and they do not have the power to force independent boards of election to use the same equipment, or standards or rules.


----------



## colfax_m

BlackSand said:


> The conflict is that the States in question did not follow laws passed by their State Legislatures as required by the US Constitution.
> A State Governor, or State Court, cannot dictate election policy, and only the State Legislatures can, and through legislation.



Let's set aside the fact that the Texas governor changed election policy through order and not by legislation. Most (maybe all I haven't examined the entire thing with a fine tooth comb) of the "problems" that it alleges had already worked it's way through the courts of each state which determine the interpretation and constitutionality of  the state laws. Some of it is just meaningless nit picks. For example, they take issue with Georgia calling voters who have issues with their ballots that need to be cured. The law states that they need to be notified in writing. Okay, so the state did both, what's the problem? 



BlackSand said:


> Secondary ... The dictates were not followed/enforced equally by all precincts within each State in question.
> That violates the Equal Protection Under the Law in regards to the vote and Articles in the Election Rights Act.



I don't know about that. I know for sure they take issue with Pennsylvania not applying the law equally. They state that voters in different counties were not given the opportunity to cure their ballots because some local officials decided not to inform people who had issues. Pennsylvania law is silent about the ability for people to cure their ballots, and the state officials did notify local officials that it is a good idea to do. These were not different sets of laws but just dereliction of some local officials to help their voters. If the law does not mandate or forbid something, it cannot be unequal application of law.

There's a lot more to this lawsuit including some very shoddy claims of fraud from some very poor quality analysis. 

But the points you raised above are central to this rebuttal. These policies were changed before the election and voters went to the polls operating under these circumstances. Deciding after the election to challenge these issues would remove the votes from many millions of voters. For what? For what harm are they claiming?


----------



## postman

bripat9643 said:


> The ruling on gay marriage was utter horseshit and obviously wrong.   Your descroption of what happened is wrong.



Stare Decicis


----------



## Lesh

BlackSand said:


> Arizona doesn't set precedence for the Supreme Court when ruling on the Constitutionality.
> It's not that I am too stupid to understand what you are saying, just that what you are saying doesn't apply to the case in question.


OMG...you really are that stupid?

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION 

That's a previous SC case. In that case the Court ruled as to what "the Legislature" means and it was a broad ruling.

Do you understand the concept of "precedent"?

Please stop embarrassing yourself


----------



## colfax_m

iceberg said:


> this isn't trumps appeal now is it? they denied that one and took this one on.
> 
> stop projecting fantasies.


Saying SCOTUS "took this one one" isn't particularly accurate. SCOTUS is not hearing this case right now, they've yet to make a decision on whether the case will be heard. Texas has so far asked for a "leave to file".


----------



## iceberg

colfax_m said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict is that the States in question did not follow laws passed by their State Legislatures as required by the US Constitution.
> A State Governor, or State Court, cannot dictate election policy, and only the State Legislatures can, and through legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's set aside the fact that the Texas governor changed election policy through order and not by legislation. Most (maybe all I haven't examined the entire thing with a fine tooth comb) of the "problems" that it alleges had already worked it's way through the courts of each state which determine the interpretation and constitutionality of  the state laws. Some of it is just meaningless nit picks. For example, they take issue with Georgia calling voters who have issues with their ballots that need to be cured. The law states that they need to be notified in writing. Okay, so the state did both, what's the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secondary ... The dictates were not followed/enforced equally by all precincts within each State in question.
> That violates the Equal Protection Under the Law in regards to the vote and Articles in the Election Rights Act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about that. I know for sure they take issue with Pennsylvania not applying the law equally. They state that voters in different counties were not given the opportunity to cure their ballots because some local officials decided not to inform people who had issues. Pennsylvania law is silent about the ability for people to cure their ballots, and the state officials did notify local officials that it is a good idea to do. These were not different sets of laws but just dereliction of some local officials to help their voters. If the law does not mandate or forbid something, it cannot be unequal application of law.
> 
> There's a lot more to this lawsuit including some very shoddy claims of fraud from some very poor quality analysis.
> 
> But the points you raised above are central to this rebuttal. These policies were changed before the election and voters went to the polls operating under these circumstances. Deciding after the election to challenge these issues would remove the votes from many millions of voters. For what? For what harm are they claiming?
Click to expand...

are you suggesting people do not have to follow their own constitutional process?

we keep breaking down authority when we don't like it but run screaming for their help when we're under attack. you act as if no one tried to stop the bullshit before the election. 

not the case.


----------



## postman

bripat9643 said:


> Then what:  the election goes to Congress where each state has one vote.



Worst case is the USSC invalidates the 64 electors from GA, MI, WI, and PA.

The victory still goes to Biden 244 to 232.


----------



## mascale

"Law" has basis in the "Elections Clause," in the matter.  Federalist 59 is most likely better studied at Supreme Court, far more than in most high schools(?).  Passages are cited in related opinions. 

At minimum, the National Security problem arises.  From what source did Texas AG, and the other 17 states, and the President of the United States:  Derive the strategy intended to overturn the "Elections Clause," and relevant Constitutional sections?  One stupid commentator alleges a Secession plot(?).  Federalist 59 was likely alluding to worldwide royal families.  Any "Cold War" level adversary now has economic interests at stake.

Understanding Texas completely:  The children of immigrants and refugees come from there--Cuban even(?)!

There is no valid Constitutional challenge even detailed in the filing.  Names, addresses, sections of legislation, histories of state legislation, detailed references to local and state court rulings and on and on.  Nothing is presented, or referenced.

Texas is a bogus place.

"Crow, James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Then there is even Pharaoh's likely arithmetic of subjugation, Deut 23:  19-20, of some "Chosen" people selected by the Moslem and Christian princes to gouge and screw millions for centuries!)


----------



## Lesh

Lesh said:


> This is like a team with one second left on their own ten and behind by 20 points throwing a Hail Mary
> 
> Not gonna happen. Kinda sad actually
> 
> Just take a knee


I repeat


----------



## iceberg

postman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what:  the election goes to Congress where each state has one vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Worst case is the USSC invalidates the 64 electors from GA, MI, WI, and PA.
> 
> The victory still goes to Biden 244 to 232.
Click to expand...

you keep saying this as if it is true.

the election doesn't simply give it to most votes, it goes to the house.

if no one hits 270,  The presidential election is left up to members of the House of Representatives in the event of a tie or any results where no one wins 270 electoral votes. The choice for the vice president is left up to the Senate.


----------



## postman

iceberg said:


> are you suggesting people do not have to follow their own constitutional process?


That is up to their courts to determine.

think of it like a speeding ticket.  You can't force a cop to write somebody a speeding ticket.  Even though that's what the law requires.

Similarly you can't fight a speeding ticket based on the officer not ticketing the other speeders.

If a states courts determine that the state doesn't have to follow it's own constitution or it's own laws, that's the end of the matter.


----------



## colfax_m

iceberg said:


> are you suggesting people do not have to follow their own constitutional process?


I'm stating they did follow their own constitutional process. That's how these changes came about in the first place.


----------



## postman

iceberg said:


> we keep breaking down authority when we don't like it but run screaming for their help when we're under attack. *you act as if no one tried to stop the bullshit before the election.*
> 
> not the case.



Actually in the Pennsylvania case, that's exactly what happened.  Nobody objected to Act 77, for almost a year.  With no objection to it's use during the states primary election.

Had there been an objection, the courts could not have used the doctrine of laches.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what Bush v. Gore ruled.
> 
> 
> 
> You totally misunderstand or misinterpret G v B. It used equal protection as its "basis" and even there said that it should not be used as precedent (because it would invalidate every election held until we have a national statute on elections)
> 
> But then you are stupid and dishonest so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dragonlady said the SC ruled that Florida couldn't change their election law at the last minute.  I rightly pointed out that she's full of shit.  Now you're saying she claimed something different.
> 
> You're also full of shit.
Click to expand...

Fucking moron, the SCOTUS ruled that different counties were applying different methods in recounting votes. Meaning a vote might count for a candidate in one county but not count for that same candidate in another county. Then the SCOTUS ruled there was not enough time to remedy that inequality; which ended the recounts with Bush up by 537 votes.


----------



## Lesh

iceberg said:


> if no one hits 270, The presidential election is left up to members of the House of Representatives in the event of a tie or any results where no one wins 270 electoral votes. The choice for the vice president is left up to the Senate.


That is the cynical ploy here. The Trumpers are hoping to bollucks uo the election and force it into Congress...knowing that THERE...the result lies not in the number of Representatives but rather in the states themselves. Each state gets one vote determined by the majority of Reps in Congress from that state. The GOP holds more states determined in that way

Trumpers can count (even if just barely) and know this would give them a win.


----------



## BlindBoo

postman said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Texas Gov. made changes too and was sued by the Texas Legislature over it..  So the SC should also Drop Texas from the total as well.  I understand a total of 30 state made minor administrative changes due to the
> 
> 
> 
> I pointed out that many states, when they granted the chief executive "extra powers" during a declared emergency, that was part of the mechanism that legislature set up to handle elections.  Think of it like giving somebody unqualified power of attorney.
> 
> Anything you can do, they can do in your name, just as if you did them yourself.
Click to expand...



"The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures. 

The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials. A few states have chosen to transfer power to draw congressional district lines from their respective legislatures to non-partisan or bipartisan “independent redistricting commissions.” 






						Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
					

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars



					constitutioncenter.org


----------



## Lesh

Faun said:


> Fucking moron, the SCOTUS ruled that different counties were applying different methods in recounting votes. Meaning a vote might count for a candidate in one county but not count for that same candidate in another county. Then the SCOTUS ruled there was not enough time to remedy that inequality; which ended the recounts with Bush up by 537 votes.


A bogus and purely politically motivated ruling that even THEY said should not be used as precedent.


----------



## postman

iceberg said:


> if no one hits 270,  The presidential election is left up to members of the House of Representatives in the event of a tie or any results where no one wins 270 electoral votes. The choice for the vice president is left up to the Senate.



Absolutely false.  Look at the first election.  It was based on the number of electors that were appointed, not the number of electors states were entitled to.

If the SC invalidates the 64 electors from those four states, the election goes to whoever has the majority from the electors appointed.


----------



## colfax_m

The complaint itself is hypocritical. It complains that state courts can't change laws governing elections but simultaneously asks the SCOTUS to suspend laws governing safe harbor and the meeting of the electoral college.


----------



## The Original Tree

*The SCOTUS is going to throw out every ballot that did not meet the state's election laws & standards.

They may even order new elections, or a forensic evaluation of the 4 states ballots.*


----------



## postman

Faun said:


> Fucking moron, the SCOTUS ruled that different counties were applying different methods in recounting votes. Meaning a vote might count for a candidate in one county but not count for that same candidate in another county. Then the SCOTUS ruled there was not enough time to remedy that inequality; which ended the recounts with Bush up by 537 votes.



Correct.  The USSC said that the florida SC could not "fix" the standards in one county, without fixing them all.  And there was no time to fix them all.


----------



## The Original Tree

colfax_m said:


> The complaint itself is hypocritical. It complains that state courts can't change laws governing elections but simultaneously asks the SCOTUS to suspend laws governing safe harbor and the meeting of the electoral college.


*Courts are not supposed to change laws.  That is a function of the legislature.

Only commie marxist globalists want to rule a nation through the courts, just like they did in Nazi Germany for illegitimate Hitler.  Joe Biden is illegitimate and is a Senile Puppet of China, Big Tech, and Russia, The UN and should not be allowed within 200 yards of The White House ever. *


----------



## postman

BlindBoo said:


> The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials. A few states have chosen to transfer power to draw congressional district lines from their respective legislatures to non-partisan or bipartisan “independent redistricting commissions.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
> 
> 
> Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars
> 
> 
> 
> constitutioncenter.org



You can't say this enough times.


----------



## colfax_m

The Original Tree said:


> Courts are not supposed to change laws. That is a function of the legislature.


And yet, Paxton is asking SCOTUS to do exactly that!

"To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed. Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President."


----------



## postman

The Original Tree said:


> *The SCOTUS is going to throw out every ballot that did not meet the state's election laws & standards.
> 
> They may even order new elections, or a forensic evaluation of the 4 states ballots.*



The court has no such power.  They can declare an action of a voter made his vote invalid.  But they can't determine which ballot is his.

And you don't disenfranchise millions over a single illegal vote.


----------



## BlackSand

postman said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona isn't listed as a State in suit.
> And ... It doesn't take the power away from the States ... It simply says that every Precinct within the State has to follow the same rules.
> 
> Don't argue ... You are simply wrong ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong.  Circuit courts have clearly said that in order for every precinct to follow the same rules, they would have to use the same equipment, and they do not have the power to force independent boards of election to use the same equipment, or standards or rules.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter whether or not they have the power to enforce their will ... The Circuit Courts don't write the laws and the Constitution doesn't allow them to.
It doesn't matter what they think they can or cannot do ... The case is that they aren't doing what is necessary.

It's not the fault of other States to abide by what another State(s) finds it can or cannot do.
Texas and the the other States are not saying they want to tell the States in Question how to hold their elections
They are simply stating that the States in question will follow the Constitution and the laws each State passes through their State Legislature, and equally among their precincts.

They aren't asking for excuses.
The Constitution is clear ... And no one gives a shit if a State cannot figure out how to follow their own laws correctly.
It's not a wild goose chase ... There is a case to be made.

.


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one babbling about Arizona and Arizona isn't included in the case.
> Quit arguing, you are wring and are going to keep being wrong
> 
> 
> 
> I'm "babbling" about a case from Arizona (listed above) that set precedent for what the SC considers "the Legislature" to be. If you are too stupid to understand that just stop talking
Click to expand...

What case is that?  Please cite it.


----------



## Faun

postman said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> we keep breaking down authority when we don't like it but run screaming for their help when we're under attack. *you act as if no one tried to stop the bullshit before the election.*
> 
> not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually in the Pennsylvania case, that's exactly what happened.  Nobody objected to Act 77, for almost a year.  With no objection to it's use during the states primary election.
> 
> Had there been an objection, the courts could not have used the doctrine of laches.
Click to expand...

Even worse, they used the provisions from act 77 in the primaries and no one objected then.

Republicans literally waited until there was an election where they didn't like the results to try and change the results based on a law Republicans put into place to take away a victory from Democrats to give to Republicans.


----------



## iceberg

colfax_m said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you suggesting people do not have to follow their own constitutional process?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm stating they did follow their own constitutional process. That's how these changes came about in the first place.
Click to expand...

TX and 18 other states disagree. we will see what the SCOTUS says and i'm fine with that.

you keep whining about it, it's what you do.


----------



## colfax_m

iceberg said:


> TX and 18 other states disagree. we will see what the SCOTUS says and i'm fine with that.


They can disagree all they want, but it has nothing to do with them. 

It'd be like me suing you because I disagree with how you did your taxes.


----------



## Faun

The Original Tree said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> The complaint itself is hypocritical. It complains that state courts can't change laws governing elections but simultaneously asks the SCOTUS to suspend laws governing safe harbor and the meeting of the electoral college.
> 
> 
> 
> *Courts are not supposed to change laws.  That is a function of the legislature.
> 
> Only commie marxist globalists want to rule a nation through the courts, just like they did in Nazi Germany for illegitimate Hitler.  Joe Biden is illegitimate and is a Senile Puppet of China, Big Tech, and Russia, The UN and should not be allowed within 200 yards of The White House ever. *
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

Stumpy, the Texas lawsuit is asking for the SCOTUS to extend the Dec. 14 deadline for certification of presidential electors, i.e., change the law. Which they can't do.

Glad to see even you think this lawsuit is bogus, even if you still don't know why you think that.


----------



## Faun

iceberg said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you suggesting people do not have to follow their own constitutional process?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm stating they did follow their own constitutional process. That's how these changes came about in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> TX and 18 other states disagree. we will see what the SCOTUS says and i'm fine with that.
> 
> you keep whining about it, it's what you do.
Click to expand...

They're going to say, _fuck off,_ but in judicial vernacular.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> we keep breaking down authority when we don't like it but run screaming for their help when we're under attack. *you act as if no one tried to stop the bullshit before the election.*
> 
> not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually in the Pennsylvania case, that's exactly what happened.  Nobody objected to Act 77, for almost a year.  With no objection to it's use during the states primary election.
> 
> Had there been an objection, the courts could not have used the doctrine of laches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even worse, they used the provisions from act 77 in the primaries and no one objected then.
> 
> Republicans literally waited until there was an election where they didn't like the results to try and change the results based on a law Republicans put into place to take away a victory from Democrats to give to Republicans.
Click to expand...

Why would Republicans object to a primarty that didn't affect them?  That's a bogus argument, just like all your other arguments.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

BlackSand said:


> They aren't asking for excuses.
> The Constitution is clear ... And no one gives a shit if a State cannot figure out how to follow their own laws correctly.
> It's not a wild goose chase ... There is a case to be made.


It's not that these states, like Michigan, cannot figure out how to follow their own laws.
The Secretary of State there just didn't bother to involve the state legislature when she unilaterally
changed state election law. She was taking her guidance from other sources.

_"Benson has received the endorsement and financial assistance of the *Secretary of State Project (SOS Project)*, a 527 political organization whose purpose, according to its website, was to "wrestling control of the country from the Republican Party" through the process of "removing their political operatives from deciding who can vote and whose votes will count," namely the office of Secretary of State in many cases. The SOS Project received its funding from the George Soros-backed Democracy Alliance._" Jocelyn Benson - Ballotpedia


----------



## Toro

You have to realize how Full Retard "conservatives" have become, and who are nothing more than Trump cultists for defending this garbage.

According to the lawsuit, states have the right to sue other states for how they implemented their elections.  Let's look at it if the shoe was on the other foot.

Harris County TX had 12 drop-boxes for voters.  Gov Abbot by EO limited the number of drop-boxes to one per county.  That was challenged in TX state court, and the suit was dismissed by the TX SC. 

Let's say CA thinks this is voter suppression, and decides to sue TX in the SCOTUS, saying the SCOTUS should throw all of the votes in TX out.  Then all the other liberal states joined the lawsuit. 

How do you think Trump's supporters would react?  Do you think they'd say "Yes!  CA has the right to interfere in TX's election!" 

No, of course not.  They'd be going bananas, claiming that CA was trying to disenfranchise people.  And they'd be right.

But because they are in a cult, and believe anything their Orange God and the slavish alt-right media tells them, they think this has merit.

Conservatives used to be against judicial activism.  This is judicial activism. 

But contradictions never bother people in a cult.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one more example of traitorous Republicans trying to overturn an election and install their candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, a moral condemnation from the poster girl for the party of election fraud and disenfranchisement.  You'll excuse me if I don't cry myself to sleep at night for not having the good opinion of someone I wouldn't piss on if she were on fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With all due respect, I really wouldn't want you pissing on me, for any reason.
> 
> Now please feel free to get back to your non-stop marathon attempt to overturn a legitimate and legal election solely because your guy lost.  Republican Refraudlican.
Click to expand...


With all due respect - meaning not a single iota - I don't need or want your permission to stand against your desire to destroy the country while pretending you're doing something noble.

But you have my permission to get back to denying your approval to people who didn't ask for it, wouldn't take it, and laugh at the idea that you have any authority to approve of anything.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> we keep breaking down authority when we don't like it but run screaming for their help when we're under attack. *you act as if no one tried to stop the bullshit before the election.*
> 
> not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually in the Pennsylvania case, that's exactly what happened.  Nobody objected to Act 77, for almost a year.  With no objection to it's use during the states primary election.
> 
> Had there been an objection, the courts could not have used the doctrine of laches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even worse, they used the provisions from act 77 in the primaries and no one objected then.
> 
> Republicans literally waited until there was an election where they didn't like the results to try and change the results based on a law Republicans put into place to take away a victory from Democrats to give to Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would Republicans object to a primarty that didn't affect them?  That's a bogus argument, just like all your other arguments.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOLOL 

You're such a fucking moron, you don't even realize you just propped up my point in a 24K golden frame.



Fucking moron, if it was unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if it's Democrats or Republicans. If it was unconstitutional, it would have been unconstitutional for all political parties.

Here you are, accentuating my point that Republicans waited until there was an election which they lost to raise this issue -- which, by the way, was one of the reason Republicans lost this case. You can't sit on a lawsuit until it's politically expedient. Google doctrine of laches to get educated.


----------



## Toro

Faun said:


> Here you are, accentuating my point that Republicans waited until there was an election which they lost to raise this issue -- which, by the way, was one of the reason Republicans lost this case. You can't sit on a lawsuit until it's politically expedient. Google doctrine of laches to get educated.



That's one of the many problems with this lawsuit, and many others.

They're not concerned about the law.  If they were, they would have challenged it in court long before the election.  But they didn't.


----------



## postman

bripat9643 said:


> Why would Republicans object to a primarty that didn't affect them?  That's a bogus argument, just like all your other arguments.











						Pennsylvania election results 2020: Live results by county
					

Pennsylvania results for the 2020 presidential election and House races. Get live polls and voting maps by county and district.




					www.nbcnews.com
				





Pennsylvania, which postponed its primary elections from April 28 to June 2 due to the coronavirus outbreak, offers the biggest prize of the night for Democrats with 186 delegates. The state has expanded the use of mail-in voting, though polling locations will also be open.

*Presidential primary results*

Biden - 1,264,624

Trump - 1,053,616


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Toro said:


> But contradictions never bother people in a cult.


Who has sued Texas? Could your post be any more irrelevant? I doubt it.

It's just some more pre-bitching and whining from those losers that want their fraud and cheating upheld and this'election to stay good and stole.


----------



## BlindBoo

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> The Secretary of State there just didn't bother to involve the state legislature when she unilaterally
> changed state election law.



What law did she change and when was it changed?


----------



## postman

bripat9643 said:


> Why would Republicans object to a primarty that didn't affect them?  That's a bogus argument, just like all your other arguments.





Faun said:


> LOLOLOLOL
> 
> You're such a fucking moron, you don't even realize you just propped up my point in a 24K golden frame.
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking moron, if it was unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if it's Democrats or Republicans. If it was unconstitutional, it would have been unconstitutional for all political parties.



It also foretold the future.  Biden got more votes than Trump in the Pennsylvania primary.

Biden - 1,264,624

 Trump - 1,053,616


----------



## postman

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Who has sued Texas? Could your post be any more irrelevant? I doubt it.
> 
> It's just some more pre-bitching and whining from those losers that want their fraud and cheating upheld and this'election to stay good and stole.



He has a point.  The liberal states should sue states like Texas for voter suppression.  That effectively increases the voting power of the individual Texan, beyond the voting power of individual people in other states.

Conservatives should cheer.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Toro said:


> That's one of the many problems with this lawsuit, and many others.
> 
> They're not concerned about the law. If they were, they would have challenged it in court long before the election. But they didn't.


Thanks for demonstrating what a desperate, stupid "genius" you are. The first thing a court looks for
in any law suit is damage done to a plaintiff.

There was no damage *before* the election! That pile of leaves and branches and cardboard in your
neighbor's yard is not actionable *before* it catches fire and burns your fence and garage down..

Keep yakking! Show off your mighty brain power some more.


----------



## postman

The next big lawsuit, I propose.  Make "open" primaries illegal.  It effectively disenfranchises the partisan votes from the other states.

Primaries are supposed to be for voters of a particular party, giving their preferences.  In an open primary people of the opposite party can literally vote to cancel out the partisan vote.  

Ex:  republicans could have voted for Hillary in 2016, pushing her ahead of Bernie Sanders, who may have been the democrats actual choice.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

postman said:


> He has a point. The liberal states should sue states like Texas for voter suppression. That effectively increases the voting power of the individual Texan, beyond the voting power of individual people in other states.
> 
> Conservatives should cheer.


I don't think so. If fact if anything it's California that suppresses the voting rights of it's citizens
through motor voter laws and illegal immigrants voting nullifying votes of lawful citizens and hence, Texas is
threatened and their voters disenfranchised also.

Voter nullification and suppression is precisely why California tries to open up it's elections to as many
non citizens as possible. It's a rat's nest of corruption. 
Of course they never admit that's that they do. They just make it so easy for everyone to vote in California.
And they make NO effort to stop anyone.
But thanks for dropping by.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> The complaint itself is hypocritical. It complains that state courts can't change laws governing elections but simultaneously asks the SCOTUS to suspend laws governing safe harbor and the meeting of the electoral college.
> 
> 
> 
> *Courts are not supposed to change laws.  That is a function of the legislature.
> 
> Only commie marxist globalists want to rule a nation through the courts, just like they did in Nazi Germany for illegitimate Hitler.  Joe Biden is illegitimate and is a Senile Puppet of China, Big Tech, and Russia, The UN and should not be allowed within 200 yards of The White House ever. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Stumpy, the Texas lawsuit is asking for the SCOTUS to extend the Dec. 14 deadline for certification of presidential electors, i.e., change the law. Which they can't do.
> 
> Glad to see even you think this lawsuit is bogus, even if you still don't know why you think that.
Click to expand...

If GA can do it, then why can't SCOTUS?


----------



## colfax_m

bripat9643 said:


> If GA can do it, then why can't SCOTUS?


Kind of a paradox. The lawsuit says GA can’t. If the lawsuit is correct, then it asks the court to do the very thing it said it can’t do.


----------



## bripat9643

colfax_m said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If GA can do it, then why can't SCOTUS?
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of a paradox. The lawsuit says GA can’t. If the lawsuit is correct, then it asks the court to do the very thing it said it can’t do.
Click to expand...

The lawsuit says the SOS or the governor cannot unilaterally change GA election law, moron.  It doesn't say GA can't change its election law.


----------



## postman

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> If fact if anything it's California that suppresses the voting rights of it's citizens
> through motor voter laws and illegal immigrants voting nullifying votes of lawful citizens* and hence, Texas is
> threatened and their voters disenfranchised also.*
> 
> But thanks for dropping by.



You were making sense, all the way up to:  
* and hence, Texas is
threatened and their voters disenfranchised also.*

Your claim that California votes "disenfranchise" texas votes is ridiculous.   You're just pointing out that a state with millions more people, gets more votes.


----------



## bripat9643

postman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would Republicans object to a primarty that didn't affect them?  That's a bogus argument, just like all your other arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOLOLOL
> 
> You're such a fucking moron, you don't even realize you just propped up my point in a 24K golden frame.
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking moron, if it was unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if it's Democrats or Republicans. If it was unconstitutional, it would have been unconstitutional for all political parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also foretold the future.  Biden got more votes than Trump in the Pennsylvania primary.
> 
> Biden - 1,264,624
> 
> Trump - 1,053,616
Click to expand...

Yeah, it fortold the future because it was subject to massive fraud and they didn't hae a result until weeks after election day.


----------



## Osiris-ODS

postman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would Republicans object to a primarty that didn't affect them?  That's a bogus argument, just like all your other arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOLOLOL
> 
> You're such a fucking moron, you don't even realize you just propped up my point in a 24K golden frame.
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking moron, if it was unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if it's Democrats or Republicans. If it was unconstitutional, it would have been unconstitutional for all political parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also foretold the future.  Biden got more votes than Trump in the Pennsylvania primary.
> 
> Biden - 1,264,624
> 
> Trump - 1,053,616
Click to expand...


This is a joke right? Trump was the incumbent who had no opponents in the primary. Yet he received historically high primary votes across the country. In previous primaries incumbent presidents regularly receive less votes than candidates from the opposing party, for example, Romney received more votes in the Republican primary than Obama (incumbent) for the Democrats.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> we keep breaking down authority when we don't like it but run screaming for their help when we're under attack. *you act as if no one tried to stop the bullshit before the election.*
> 
> not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually in the Pennsylvania case, that's exactly what happened.  Nobody objected to Act 77, for almost a year.  With no objection to it's use during the states primary election.
> 
> Had there been an objection, the courts could not have used the doctrine of laches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even worse, they used the provisions from act 77 in the primaries and no one objected then.
> 
> Republicans literally waited until there was an election where they didn't like the results to try and change the results based on a law Republicans put into place to take away a victory from Democrats to give to Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would Republicans object to a primarty that didn't affect them?  That's a bogus argument, just like all your other arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOLOL
> 
> You're such a fucking moron, you don't even realize you just propped up my point in a 24K golden frame.
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking moron, if it was unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if it's Democrats or Republicans. If it was unconstitutional, it would have been unconstitutional for all political parties.
> 
> Here you are, accentuating my point that Republicans waited until there was an election which they lost to raise this issue -- which, by the way, was one of the reason Republicans lost this case. You can't sit on a lawsuit until it's politically expedient. Google doctrine of laches to get educated.
Click to expand...

Who said it wasn't unconstitutional for all political parties?  It was just as unconstitutional then as it is now.  The only difference is that republicans didn't file suit then.  There's no requirement to file such a suit at a specific time, moron.  Your objection is that it should be ruled constitutional because Republicans didn't care if the DNC fucked its own constituents.  That's not a legitimate basis for throwing a lawsuit out, you fucking dumbass.


----------



## colfax_m

bripat9643 said:


> The lawsuit says the SOS or the governor cannot unilaterally change GA election law, moron. It doesn't say GA can't change its election law.


The lawsuit asks the SCOTUS to unilaterally change federal election law. Ironic, isn't it?


----------



## bripat9643

colfax_m said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lawsuit says the SOS or the governor cannot unilaterally change GA election law, moron. It doesn't say GA can't change its election law.
> 
> 
> 
> The lawsuit asks the SCOTUS to unilaterally change federal election law. Ironic, isn't it?
Click to expand...

What federal election law?


----------



## colfax_m

bripat9643 said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lawsuit says the SOS or the governor cannot unilaterally change GA election law, moron. It doesn't say GA can't change its election law.
> 
> 
> 
> The lawsuit asks the SCOTUS to unilaterally change federal election law. Ironic, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What federal election law?
Click to expand...

3 USC 5 and 7


----------



## bripat9643

colfax_m said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lawsuit says the SOS or the governor cannot unilaterally change GA election law, moron. It doesn't say GA can't change its election law.
> 
> 
> 
> The lawsuit asks the SCOTUS to unilaterally change federal election law. Ironic, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What federal election law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3 USC 5 and 7
Click to expand...

No one is trying to change it, moron.


----------



## colfax_m

bripat9643 said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lawsuit says the SOS or the governor cannot unilaterally change GA election law, moron. It doesn't say GA can't change its election law.
> 
> 
> 
> The lawsuit asks the SCOTUS to unilaterally change federal election law. Ironic, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What federal election law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3 USC 5 and 7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is trying to change it, moron.
Click to expand...

From their lawsuit: 

To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed. Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President. 



			https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Original Tree said:


> *The SCOTUS is going to throw out every ballot that did not meet the state's election laws & standards.
> 
> They may even order new elections, or a forensic evaluation of the 4 states ballots.*


Stop doing this to yourself.


----------



## bripat9643

colfax_m said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lawsuit says the SOS or the governor cannot unilaterally change GA election law, moron. It doesn't say GA can't change its election law.
> 
> 
> 
> The lawsuit asks the SCOTUS to unilaterally change federal election law. Ironic, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What federal election law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3 USC 5 and 7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is trying to change it, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From their lawsuit:
> 
> To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed. Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf
Click to expand...

That rule was created by the federal government.  The Constitution refers only to state election law, moron


----------



## colfax_m

bripat9643 said:


> That rule was created by the federal government. The Constitution refers only to state election law, moron


The Constitution definitely does not only refer to state election laws.

Can SCOTUS write new laws?


----------



## The Original Tree

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The SCOTUS is going to throw out every ballot that did not meet the state's election laws & standards.
> 
> They may even order new elections, or a forensic evaluation of the 4 states ballots.*
> 
> 
> 
> Stop doing this to yourself.
Click to expand...

*Stop trying to put criminals in The White House through Fraudulent, Invalid and Illegal Elections.  Start putting your crooked politicians in jail and restore faith in our elections.

Voter ID is a start.*


----------



## Flash

*The Supreme Court has a chance to save our Country from the greatest Election abuse in the history of the United States. 78% of the people feel (know!) the Election was RIGGED. *

*Donald J. Trump  (@realDonaldTrump) December 10, 2020 *


----------



## bripat9643

colfax_m said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That rule was created by the federal government. The Constitution refers only to state election law, moron
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution definitely does not only refer to state election laws.
> 
> Can SCOTUS write new laws?
Click to expand...

When it refers to election laws, it refers only to state election laws.  Please quote anywhere it does otherwise.  All elections in this country are run by states.


----------



## colfax_m

bripat9643 said:


> When it refers to election laws, it refers only to state election laws. Please quote anywhere it does otherwise. All elections in this country are run by states.


Article 2, section 1, Clause 4

Look it up. Tell me what it says.


----------



## bottlecap

colfax_m said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lawsuit says the SOS or the governor cannot unilaterally change GA election law, moron. It doesn't say GA can't change its election law.
> 
> 
> 
> The lawsuit asks the SCOTUS to unilaterally change federal election law. Ironic, isn't it?
Click to expand...

No, just the opposite.  They are asking the Supreme Court to enforce the US Constitution.

Congress Has Affirmed State Legislatures’ Unilateral Authority to Void Elections at Midnight after Election Day - The Post & Email

"While *the United States Supreme Court – in an 8-0 decision (See Chiafolo v. Washington, 591 U.S. ___, decided July 6, 2020) – reaffirmed a longstanding judicially recognized principle, that Article 2;§1 of the Constitution grants plenary authority to the Legislatures of each State to determine the manner of appointing presidential electors,
===================*
So the * Legislatures of each State* set the rules for determining the electors.

Almost all states, including of course Georgia have established that their electors are given to the candidate with the most  votes.  

But also included is the power of the Legislatures to set the parameters of the voting procedures.  What Sec. of State Brad Raffensperger has done was change voting laws while bypassing the state legislatures.

By entering into a "Consent Decree with the Democratic Party is a direct violation of the US Constitution.


----------



## colfax_m

bottlecap said:


> No, just the opposite. They are asking the Supreme Court to enforce the US Constitution.



You should have read the lawsuit where they say this:
To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed. 

That deadline is determined by Congress. There is nowhere in the constitution that it grants the courts to make unilateral changes.

The case is asking the court to do exactly what it is asking the court to forbid.


----------



## BlindBoo

bottlecap said:


> What Sec. of State Brad Raffensperger has done was change voting laws



What laws are they claiming were changed?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

postman said:


> You were making sense, all the way up to:
> * and hence, Texas is
> threatened and their voters disenfranchised also.*
> 
> Your claim that California votes "disenfranchise" texas votes is ridiculous. You're just pointing out that a state with millions more people, gets more votes.


In any national election a state like California threatens and disenfranchises everyone else the way
fat person puts everyone else at danger when jumping into a kiddie pool.
California only gives the impression that they are only letting legal voters vote.


----------



## iceberg

colfax_m said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That rule was created by the federal government. The Constitution refers only to state election law, moron
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution definitely does not only refer to state election laws.
> 
> Can SCOTUS write new laws?
Click to expand...

seems to be what's going around. people outside of the legislative branch have been creating and altering laws.

kinda why we're here isn't it?


----------



## colfax_m

iceberg said:


> seems to be what's going around. people outside of the legislative branch have been creating and altering laws.
> 
> kinda why we're here isn't it?


Funny how the people who are suing about that issue are simultaneously, and in the same lawsuit, asking the courts to do the exact same thing.

The lawsuit is self contradictory.


----------



## bottlecap

*                                                                   US CONSTITUTION*

ARTICLE II  Section 1

[2]* Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,* a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

[4] The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It looks like the State Legislators get to determine the rules for someone becoming an elector, while the US Congress tells the States what date their electors must make their votes publicly known.


----------



## Faun

Toro said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are, accentuating my point that Republicans waited until there was an election which they lost to raise this issue -- which, by the way, was one of the reason Republicans lost this case. You can't sit on a lawsuit until it's politically expedient. Google doctrine of laches to get educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one of the many problems with this lawsuit, and many others.
> 
> They're not concerned about the law.  If they were, they would have challenged it in court long before the election.  But they didn't.
Click to expand...

That's correct. They held on to it, knowing a day would come when they would lose an election that they could then play that card, hoping to reverse the will of the people.


----------



## bottlecap

colfax_m said:


> bottlecap said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, just the opposite. They are asking the Supreme Court to enforce the US Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should have read the lawsuit where they say this:
> To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed.
> 
> That deadline is determined by Congress. There is nowhere in the constitution that it grants the courts to make unilateral changes.
> 
> The case is asking the court to do exactly what it is asking the court to forbid.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you on that point...the date for the vote state electors vote is set by Congress and the Supreme Court can not change that in my view.


----------



## sartre play

Waiting for the fat lady to sing.


----------



## Faun

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has a point. The liberal states should sue states like Texas for voter suppression. That effectively increases the voting power of the individual Texan, beyond the voting power of individual people in other states.
> 
> Conservatives should cheer.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. If fact if anything it's California that suppresses the voting rights of it's citizens
> through motor voter laws and illegal immigrants voting nullifying votes of lawful citizens and hence, Texas is
> threatened and their voters disenfranchised also.
> 
> Voter nullification and suppression is precisely why California tries to open up it's elections to as many
> non citizens as possible. It's a rat's nest of corruption.
> Of course they never admit that's that they do. They just make it so easy for everyone to vote in California.
> And they make NO effort to stop anyone.
> But thanks for dropping by.
Click to expand...

Motor voter laws were enacted because of a federal mandate. It affects not just California but all states.


----------



## BlindBoo

bottlecap said:


> It looks like the State Legislators get to determine the rules for someone becoming an elector



They got to.  They legally bound the selection to the popular vote in the States election.  Delegating the authority to the People and the States elections process.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> The complaint itself is hypocritical. It complains that state courts can't change laws governing elections but simultaneously asks the SCOTUS to suspend laws governing safe harbor and the meeting of the electoral college.
> 
> 
> 
> *Courts are not supposed to change laws.  That is a function of the legislature.
> 
> Only commie marxist globalists want to rule a nation through the courts, just like they did in Nazi Germany for illegitimate Hitler.  Joe Biden is illegitimate and is a Senile Puppet of China, Big Tech, and Russia, The UN and should not be allowed within 200 yards of The White House ever. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Stumpy, the Texas lawsuit is asking for the SCOTUS to extend the Dec. 14 deadline for certification of presidential electors, i.e., change the law. Which they can't do.
> 
> Glad to see even you think this lawsuit is bogus, even if you still don't know why you think that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If GA can do it, then why can't SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

Georgia didn't extend that date, fucking moron. You should know that since today is only the 10th.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> we keep breaking down authority when we don't like it but run screaming for their help when we're under attack. *you act as if no one tried to stop the bullshit before the election.*
> 
> not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually in the Pennsylvania case, that's exactly what happened.  Nobody objected to Act 77, for almost a year.  With no objection to it's use during the states primary election.
> 
> Had there been an objection, the courts could not have used the doctrine of laches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even worse, they used the provisions from act 77 in the primaries and no one objected then.
> 
> Republicans literally waited until there was an election where they didn't like the results to try and change the results based on a law Republicans put into place to take away a victory from Democrats to give to Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would Republicans object to a primarty that didn't affect them?  That's a bogus argument, just like all your other arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOLOL
> 
> You're such a fucking moron, you don't even realize you just propped up my point in a 24K golden frame.
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking moron, if it was unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if it's Democrats or Republicans. If it was unconstitutional, it would have been unconstitutional for all political parties.
> 
> Here you are, accentuating my point that Republicans waited until there was an election which they lost to raise this issue -- which, by the way, was one of the reason Republicans lost this case. You can't sit on a lawsuit until it's politically expedient. Google doctrine of laches to get educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said it wasn't unconstitutional for all political parties?  It was just as unconstitutional then as it is now.  The only difference is that republicans didn't file suit then.  There's no requirement to file such a suit at a specific time, moron.  Your objection is that it should be ruled constitutional because Republicans didn't care if the DNC fucked its own constituents.  That's not a legitimate basis for throwing a lawsuit out, you fucking dumbass.
Click to expand...

Fucking moron, I already recommended you Google doctrine of laches.  Had you educated yourself you wouldn't have posted that fucking moronic post.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lawsuit asks the SCOTUS to unilaterally change federal election law. Ironic, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> What federal election law?
Click to expand...


----------



## colfax_m

bottlecap said:


> I have to agree with you on that point...the date for the vote state electors vote is set by Congress and the Supreme Court can not change that in my view.


The lawsuit is self contradictory. The electors have been chosen by the states and the law states these are to be considered final as of last Tuesday.


----------



## bottlecap

Faun said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are, accentuating my point that Republicans waited until there was an election which they lost to raise this issue -- which, by the way, was one of the reason Republicans lost this case. You can't sit on a lawsuit until it's politically expedient. Google doctrine of laches to get educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one of the many problems with this lawsuit, and many others.
> 
> They're not concerned about the law.  If they were, they would have challenged it in court long before the election.  But they didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's correct. They held on to it, knowing a day would come when they would lose an election that they could then play that card, hoping to reverse the will of the people.
Click to expand...

*Not the "Will of the People" but the will of the GLOBALIST Billionaires.*



			https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/02/tech-billionaire-2020-election-donations-final-tally.html
		


About 98% of political contributions from internet companies this cycle went to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The CEOs of Asana, Twilio and Netflix were among the biggest contributors, and they all targeted Democratic groups and candidates.

Super PACs focused on flipping the Senate in favor of Democrats and winning in swing states received millions of dollars from tech execs.
-----------------
*Add to that the following TRUMP HATERS;* ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, most other newspapers and periodicals, college professors and Hollywood AND is it any wonder that many people did not vote for TRUMP.

Nevertheless, the Democrats still had to run a corrupt election to squeak out an advantage.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What federal election law?
> 
> 
> 
> 3 USC 5 and 7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is trying to change it, moron.
Click to expand...


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> When it refers to election laws, it refers only to state election laws.  Please quote anywhere it does otherwise.  All elections in this country are run by states.


----------



## Faun

colfax_m said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it refers to election laws, it refers only to state election laws. Please quote anywhere it does otherwise. All elections in this country are run by states.
> 
> 
> 
> Article 2, section 1, Clause 4
> 
> Look it up. Tell me what it says.
Click to expand...

That one is the biggest fucking moron on the planet.


----------



## Faun

bottlecap said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are, accentuating my point that Republicans waited until there was an election which they lost to raise this issue -- which, by the way, was one of the reason Republicans lost this case. You can't sit on a lawsuit until it's politically expedient. Google doctrine of laches to get educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one of the many problems with this lawsuit, and many others.
> 
> They're not concerned about the law.  If they were, they would have challenged it in court long before the election.  But they didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's correct. They held on to it, knowing a day would come when they would lose an election that they could then play that card, hoping to reverse the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not the "Will of the People" but the will of the GLOBALIST Billionaires.*
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/02/tech-billionaire-2020-election-donations-final-tally.html
> 
> 
> 
> About 98% of political contributions from internet companies this cycle went to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
> 
> The CEOs of Asana, Twilio and Netflix were among the biggest contributors, and they all targeted Democratic groups and candidates.
> 
> Super PACs focused on flipping the Senate in favor of Democrats and winning in swing states received millions of dollars from tech execs.
> -----------------
> *Add to that the following TRUMP HATERS;* ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, most other newspapers and periodicals, college professors and Hollywood AND is it any wonder that many people did not vote for TRUMP.
> 
> Nevertheless, the Democrats still had to run a corrupt election to squeak out an advantage.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, people vote; dollars do not.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> The complaint itself is hypocritical. It complains that state courts can't change laws governing elections but simultaneously asks the SCOTUS to suspend laws governing safe harbor and the meeting of the electoral college.
> 
> 
> 
> *Courts are not supposed to change laws.  That is a function of the legislature.
> 
> Only commie marxist globalists want to rule a nation through the courts, just like they did in Nazi Germany for illegitimate Hitler.  Joe Biden is illegitimate and is a Senile Puppet of China, Big Tech, and Russia, The UN and should not be allowed within 200 yards of The White House ever. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Stumpy, the Texas lawsuit is asking for the SCOTUS to extend the Dec. 14 deadline for certification of presidential electors, i.e., change the law. Which they can't do.
> 
> Glad to see even you think this lawsuit is bogus, even if you still don't know why you think that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If GA can do it, then why can't SCOTUS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Georgia didn't extend that date, fucking moron. You should know that since today is only the 10th.
Click to expand...

Where did I say it did extend the date.  How could GA possibly extend the safe harbor date?  GA did change its election laws, however.   Rather, that spineless cuck governor and the douchebag SOS did.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it refers to election laws, it refers only to state election laws. Please quote anywhere it does otherwise. All elections in this country are run by states.
> 
> 
> 
> Article 2, section 1, Clause 4
> 
> Look it up. Tell me what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That one is the biggest fucking moron on the planet.
Click to expand...

ROFL!  Your hatred for me only shows that you fear me.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it refers to election laws, it refers only to state election laws.  Please quote anywhere it does otherwise.  All elections in this country are run by states.
Click to expand...

I knew you couldn't quote anything.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What federal election law?
> 
> 
> 
> 3 USC 5 and 7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is trying to change it, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> we keep breaking down authority when we don't like it but run screaming for their help when we're under attack. *you act as if no one tried to stop the bullshit before the election.*
> 
> not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually in the Pennsylvania case, that's exactly what happened.  Nobody objected to Act 77, for almost a year.  With no objection to it's use during the states primary election.
> 
> Had there been an objection, the courts could not have used the doctrine of laches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even worse, they used the provisions from act 77 in the primaries and no one objected then.
> 
> Republicans literally waited until there was an election where they didn't like the results to try and change the results based on a law Republicans put into place to take away a victory from Democrats to give to Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would Republicans object to a primarty that didn't affect them?  That's a bogus argument, just like all your other arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOLOL
> 
> You're such a fucking moron, you don't even realize you just propped up my point in a 24K golden frame.
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking moron, if it was unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if it's Democrats or Republicans. If it was unconstitutional, it would have been unconstitutional for all political parties.
> 
> Here you are, accentuating my point that Republicans waited until there was an election which they lost to raise this issue -- which, by the way, was one of the reason Republicans lost this case. You can't sit on a lawsuit until it's politically expedient. Google doctrine of laches to get educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said it wasn't unconstitutional for all political parties?  It was just as unconstitutional then as it is now.  The only difference is that republicans didn't file suit then.  There's no requirement to file such a suit at a specific time, moron.  Your objection is that it should be ruled constitutional because Republicans didn't care if the DNC fucked its own constituents.  That's not a legitimate basis for throwing a lawsuit out, you fucking dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking moron, I already recommended you Google doctrine of laches.  Had you educated yourself you wouldn't have posted that fucking moronic post.
Click to expand...

In other words, you can't answer the question.


----------



## mascale

The 3:00 p.m., 12/10, hour is already history--as is customary, even several minutes way after.  In fact, failure at "Timely Filing" is just one of many noted reasons the Defendants oppose granting any leave to present a case.  "The District," where the court is located:  Filed amicus curare on behalf of 22 jurisdictions--as in, "The Really Big Ones!"  Each of the four states filed its own responses.  Some Republicans filed as amici, as did 17 Republican states, and various friendly and unfriendly(?) other amici..

So effectively:  It is too complex already, and notably Texas waited until after a month to file.  Now, for the silence, or maybe even an English sentence denial.  (Texas claimed to be filing on its behalf and others--the others not identified, possibly Martians, Venezuelans, computer Technicians, and maybe the Senator Ted Cruz family, from an "Undisclosed Location."

In the link, Michigan went into extensive detail, a lot from just in Michigan, alone!



			https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163387/20201210145404465_22O155%20Texas%20MI%20BIO%2012-10.pdf
		


"Crow James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Matt 20: 1-16, provides that like a Stimulus Program:  Then each payment amount is equal, regardless if the beneficiary had worked all the year or not, got laid off due to the plague, spent their summer vacations all in quarantine:  Or stayed sober, starting in . . .anytime at all!)


----------



## colfax_m

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it refers to election laws, it refers only to state election laws. Please quote anywhere it does otherwise. All elections in this country are run by states.
> 
> 
> 
> Article 2, section 1, Clause 4
> 
> Look it up. Tell me what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That one is the biggest fucking moron on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  Your hatred for me only shows that you fear me.
Click to expand...

Did you happen to look up that little part of the constitution that you think doesn't exist? And did you happen to refer back to the part of the lawsuit that asks SCOTUS to rewrite the law?


----------



## jillian

mascale said:


> The the 3:00 p.m., 12/10, hour is already history--as is customary, even several minutes way after.  In fact, failure at "Timely Filing" is just one of many noted reasons the Defendants oppose granting any leave to present a case.  "The District," where the court is located:  Filed amicus curare on behalf of 22 jurisdictions--as in, "The Really Big Ones!"  Each of the four states filed its own responses.  Some Republicans filed as amici, as did 17 Republican states, and various friendly and unfriendly(?) other amici..
> 
> So effectively:  It is too complex already, and notably Texas under until after a month to file.  Now, for the silence, or maybe even an English sentence denial.  (Texas claimed to be filing on its behalf and others--the others not identified, possibly Martians, Venezuelans, computer Technicians, and maybe the Senator Ted Cruz family, from an "Undisclosed Location."
> 
> In the link, Michigan went into extensive detail, a lot from just in Michigan, alone!
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163387/20201210145404465_22O155%20Texas%20MI%20BIO%2012-10.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> "Crow James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred!"
> (Matt 20: 1-16, provides that like a Stimulus Program:  Then each payment amount is equal, regardless if the beneficiary had worked all the year or not, got laid off due to the plague, spent their summer vacations all in quarantine:  Or stayed sober, starting in . . .anytime at all!)


You know the court isn’t going to take this a insane case, right?


----------



## protectionist

jillian said:


> You know the court isn’t going to take this a insane case, right?


They have to, or else they wouldn't be upholding* the US Constitution,* which is the crux of the case.  If they don't take this case, they don't exist.


----------



## busybee01

Indeependent said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now we have 17 states joining with Texas.   Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hilbilly states of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
Click to expand...


There is a trend. Biden won Georgia because of the suburban vote which voted for a Republican governor just 6 years ago. It will only get worse as rural states lose voters while the suburbs gain voters. The states that went to Trump are at the bottom in education. The red states are hillbillies.


----------



## busybee01

Jim H - VA USA said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
Click to expand...


They have no standing to sue because how other states comduct their elections are none of their business. Even Texas REPUBLICAN senator Cornyn has said that. Nothing has been done illegally.


----------



## busybee01

Skylar said:


> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
Click to expand...


By federal judges as well. Some were even appointed by Trump.


----------



## busybee01

bripat9643 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to. Not unless there's a reason for SCOTUS to take up this case with someone who has nothing to do with whether any other state acted in accordance with it's own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can another state force a state to follow it's own laws?
> 
> The DA has prosecutorial discretion in charging crimes.  So how can another state force them to prosecute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they can.  How about pollution laws where water pollution goes into states that are downstream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These states are directly affected by pollution. That is not true in elections. Also we are talking about federal ;laws not state laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  In other words, you are wrong.  Allowing wholesale fraud in your state cancels out the votes of people in every other state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No wholesale fraud happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your level of intelligence. Every judge has stated that Trump has provided no evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NOT.
Click to expand...


Yes you are.


----------



## busybee01

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.
Click to expand...


Nothing illegal about it.


----------



## busybee01

Indeependent said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.
> 
> Plus, the gloating after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine...I'm sure that after Biden destroys all those new businesses in Black areas, you will help pay their bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden should probably be paying some bills to you.....as he's living rent free in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to admit that I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
> Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
> You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....perhaps silly attempts at insults are all you have left as you abandon the topic of the thread.
> 
> You stick with your 'feelings'. I'll stick with mocking this steaming pseudo-legal turd of a lawsuit from Texas. And its intended audience.
> 
> Deal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with economic reality...every strata of America has done better under Trump than under any other President.
> *You're* the one who claims you hate (a *feeling*) him and can't specify a reason.
Click to expand...


When you start at your opponent's 5 yard line, it is not too hard to score. The unemplyment rats was under 5 when Trump took office. Trump has never hard a yearly GDP over 3%.


----------



## Moonglow

> The Constitution has entrusted the states to determine their electors in a presidential election. Consistent with Michigan law, the State of Michigan has certified its presidential vote and the election in Michigan is over. The challenge here is an unprecedented one, without factual foundation or a valid legal basis. This Court should summarily dismiss the motion to file the bill of complaint. To do otherwise would make this Court the arbiter of all future national elections.


The Trumpets can't stop breathing their own entrails without understanding the meaning of the actions of the AG's under Trump's spell...Trump's word is worthless to me and the Supreme Court will agree that these allegations are not a solid basis to disenfranchise millions of voters because one man is throwing a tantrum....


----------



## busybee01

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just stated a logical impossiblity.  How does one adjudicate "themselves?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How does a State court adjudicate State laws?* Using what's called 'jurisdiction' and the 'judicial power' granted by their respective state constitutions.
> 
> You see it exercised every day in State court when State laws are adjudicated. In fact, State law is the generally the only thing that State courts can adjudicate.
> 
> Remember, you have no idea what's going on or how any of this works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lawsuit between states, idiot.  What you're saying is that defense attorney can rule his client innocent.
Click to expand...


Federal judges appointed by Trump have ruled against him.


----------



## Indeependent

busybee01 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now we have 17 states joining with Texas.   Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hilbilly states of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a trend. Biden won Georgia because of the suburban vote which voted for a Republican governor just 6 years ago. It will only get worse as rural states lose voters while the suburbs gain voters. The states that went to Trump are at the bottom in education. The red states are hillbillies.
Click to expand...

Teachers and non-MD Health Care Workers are not quite the most highly educated.
You Liberals flatter yourselves way too much but you can get away with that because you hang out with each other.


----------



## Indeependent

busybee01 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.
> 
> Plus, the gloating after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine...I'm sure that after Biden destroys all those new businesses in Black areas, you will help pay their bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden should probably be paying some bills to you.....as he's living rent free in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to admit that I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
> Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
> You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....perhaps silly attempts at insults are all you have left as you abandon the topic of the thread.
> 
> You stick with your 'feelings'. I'll stick with mocking this steaming pseudo-legal turd of a lawsuit from Texas. And its intended audience.
> 
> Deal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with economic reality...every strata of America has done better under Trump than under any other President.
> *You're* the one who claims you hate (a *feeling*) him and can't specify a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you start at your opponent's 5 yard line, it is not too hard to score. The unemplyment rats was under 5 when Trump took office. Trump has never hard a yearly GDP over 3%.
Click to expand...

There is more to unemployment numbers than just the numbers.
What were unskilled workers doing other than serving food?


----------



## bottlecap

Faun said:


> bottlecap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are, accentuating my point that Republicans waited until there was an election which they lost to raise this issue -- which, by the way, was one of the reason Republicans lost this case. You can't sit on a lawsuit until it's politically expedient. Google doctrine of laches to get educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one of the many problems with this lawsuit, and many others.
> 
> They're not concerned about the law.  If they were, they would have challenged it in court long before the election.  But they didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's correct. They held on to it, knowing a day would come when they would lose an election that they could then play that card, hoping to reverse the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not the "Will of the People" but the will of the GLOBALIST Billionaires.*
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/02/tech-billionaire-2020-election-donations-final-tally.html
> 
> 
> 
> About 98% of political contributions from internet companies this cycle went to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
> 
> The CEOs of Asana, Twilio and Netflix were among the biggest contributors, and they all targeted Democratic groups and candidates.
> 
> Super PACs focused on flipping the Senate in favor of Democrats and winning in swing states received millions of dollars from tech execs.
> -----------------
> *Add to that the following TRUMP HATERS;* ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, most other newspapers and periodicals, college professors and Hollywood AND is it any wonder that many people did not vote for TRUMP.
> 
> Nevertheless, the Democrats still had to run a corrupt election to squeak out an advantage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, no, people vote; dollars do not.
Click to expand...

I personally have never met TRUMP or Biden and must rely on different sources of media to make judgements between them.

During the MLB baseball season, 2020, the Los Angeles Dodgers were the best team in baseball, while the team with the worst record was the Pittsburg Pirates.  But I think you would agree that one could make a video montage of defensive plays and hits that show the Pirates hitting home runs, stealing bases, making great  defensive plays, getting outstanding pitching, etc.  At the same that video time could show the Dodgers making errors, striking out and making baserunning gaffs. The conclusion of someone with no knowledge of the baseball season would be that the Dodgers stink and the Pirates are world champions.

Fortunately, baseball is a very public game so most people would know which team was really better. BUT in politics that is not the case and exposure and political analysis is SUBJECTIVE and videos are highly edited.

In 2020, the exposure TRUMP got was horrible, while Biden got little coverage, but when he did it was softball.
Granted, there were pro-conservative outlets, but when compared to the anti-TRUMP outlets it was a like a PRO Football team against a High School Football team.

No dollars count and information count and those who have money and control information have great influence on how people think and how people vote.


----------



## busybee01

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, nothing illegal about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does the state law of Michigan allow mail-in voting?
Click to expand...


here it is.
"A proposal to bring same-day voter registration, no-reason absentee voting and more sweeping changes to Michigan's election law was approved by voters  Tuesday by a better than two-to-one margin.

With 99 percent of the vote counted, the tally was 2,724,234 yes to 1,353,653 no, a margin of 66.8 percent to 33.2 percent."

Michigan's Proposal 3: Voters OK changes to election law (lansingstatejournal.com)


----------



## protectionist

Moonglow said:


> The Trumpets can't stop breathing their own entrails without understanding the meaning of the actions of the AG's under Trump's spell...Trump's word is worthless to me and the Supreme Court will agree that these allegations are not a solid basis to disenfranchise millions of voters because one man is throwing a tantrum....


That's not what's happening. It is PA, GA, WI, and MI that are disenfranchising all the voters of the USA by engaging in illegal UNCONSTITUTIONAL actions, which the other states are not engaging in.  They have violated* Constitution Article 2 Section 1 ("in such Manner as the Legislature therof may direct")*

As for Trump, he is merely reacting normally as one who has had something stolen from him.  But it's not just Trump who is the theft victim. It is all of America.


----------



## Moonglow

protectionist said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Trumpets can't stop breathing their own entrails without understanding the meaning of the actions of the AG's under Trump's spell...Trump's word is worthless to me and the Supreme Court will agree that these allegations are not a solid basis to disenfranchise millions of voters because one man is throwing a tantrum....
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what's happening. It is PA, GA, WI, and MI that are disenfranchising all the voters of the USA by engaging in illegal UNCONSTITUTIONAL actions, which the other states are not engaging in.  They have violated* Constitution Article 2 Section 1 ("in such Manner as the Legislature therof may direct")*
> 
> As for Trump, he is merely reacting normally as one who has had something stolen from him.  But it's not just Trump who is the theft victim. It is all of America.
Click to expand...

What exactly are they doing unconstitutionally to disenfranchise all the voters?


----------



## protectionist

Christ_on_a_croissant has clicked "Disagree" for my post # 5. Pleas tell us what you disagree with.


----------



## busybee01

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the ones that were changed, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking moron, you already answered that post of mine with, _"Mail-in voting, for one, asshole."_ But you fail because there was nothing illegal about mail-in voting. So which other rules were illegally changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is illegal if it's not a law in the state, and unless the legislature voted to make it a law, then it's illegal.  The governor or state courts cannot change the law unilaterally.  What part of that don't you get?
Click to expand...


Untrue. The legislature can delegate that authority to other bodies such as in Michigan where voters can initiate a proposition that can be voted on by voters. The proposition won by a 2-1 margin. That allowed no-excuse mail in balloting in Michigan.


----------



## busybee01

The Original Tree said:


> *The SCOTUS is going to throw out every ballot that did not meet the state's election laws & standards.
> 
> They may even order new elections, or a forensic evaluation of the 4 states ballots.*



No they are not.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What federal election law?
> 
> 
> 
> 3 USC 5 and 7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is trying to change it, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Fucking moron, the Texas lawsuit seeks to change the date the presidential electors cast their votes. That date is defined by federal law. The very federal you obviously know nothing about based on your idiotic question, _"what federal election law?"_

Savvy?


----------



## progressive hunter

BREAKING: 106 House Republicans file Amicus Brief in Texas election case at Supreme Court
					

106 House Republicans have just filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court to hear the election lawsuit Texas is filing against four states: ⚖️JUST IN: New amicus brief from 106 Rep…




					therightscoop.com


----------



## busybee01

iceberg said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you suggesting people do not have to follow their own constitutional process?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm stating they did follow their own constitutional process. That's how these changes came about in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> TX and 18 other states disagree. we will see what the SCOTUS says and i'm fine with that.
> 
> you keep whining about it, it's what you do.
Click to expand...


The 19 Fascist States of America.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> we keep breaking down authority when we don't like it but run screaming for their help when we're under attack. *you act as if no one tried to stop the bullshit before the election.*
> 
> not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually in the Pennsylvania case, that's exactly what happened.  Nobody objected to Act 77, for almost a year.  With no objection to it's use during the states primary election.
> 
> Had there been an objection, the courts could not have used the doctrine of laches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even worse, they used the provisions from act 77 in the primaries and no one objected then.
> 
> Republicans literally waited until there was an election where they didn't like the results to try and change the results based on a law Republicans put into place to take away a victory from Democrats to give to Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would Republicans object to a primarty that didn't affect them?  That's a bogus argument, just like all your other arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOLOL
> 
> You're such a fucking moron, you don't even realize you just propped up my point in a 24K golden frame.
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking moron, if it was unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if it's Democrats or Republicans. If it was unconstitutional, it would have been unconstitutional for all political parties.
> 
> Here you are, accentuating my point that Republicans waited until there was an election which they lost to raise this issue -- which, by the way, was one of the reason Republicans lost this case. You can't sit on a lawsuit until it's politically expedient. Google doctrine of laches to get educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said it wasn't unconstitutional for all political parties?  It was just as unconstitutional then as it is now.  The only difference is that republicans didn't file suit then.  There's no requirement to file such a suit at a specific time, moron.  Your objection is that it should be ruled constitutional because Republicans didn't care if the DNC fucked its own constituents.  That's not a legitimate basis for throwing a lawsuit out, you fucking dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking moron, I already recommended you Google doctrine of laches.  Had you educated yourself you wouldn't have posted that fucking moronic post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you can't answer the question.
Click to expand...

It was a dumb question. Because the answer is -- you did. When you asked, _"why would Republicans object to a primarty that didn't affect them?"_

So either you're asking because you think it affects only Democrats; or you asked because you know I'm right when I said Republicans sat on that lawsuit until they lost an election.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it refers to election laws, it refers only to state election laws. Please quote anywhere it does otherwise. All elections in this country are run by states.
> 
> 
> 
> Article 2, section 1, Clause 4
> 
> Look it up. Tell me what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That one is the biggest fucking moron on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  Your hatred for me only shows that you fear me.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

Nobody fears a fucking moron. 

Have you found that federal law yet that you don't know about which the Texas lawsuit seeks to have the Supreme Court change from the bench?


----------



## busybee01

postman said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secondary ... The dictates were not followed/enforced equally by all precincts within each State in question.
> That violates the Equal Protection Under the Law in regards to the vote and Articles in the Election Rights Act.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the 4th and 9th circuit are dealing with that right now.  The original judgement was that there was an equal protection argument.  But that was overturned because there is no legal remedy to equal protection violations.
> 
> Example, if one town has an average police or fire, or EMT response time twice that of the town next door.  Can they sue for equal protection.  Force their town to give them the same protection as the town next door?
> 
> The court used the legal maxim, where there is no remedy, there is no right.  If the court can't fix it, you have no right to it.
> 
> And demanding the votes in every county in the country be handled equally is beyond what a court has jurisdiction to order.
Click to expand...




Eric Arthur Blair said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't asking for excuses.
> The Constitution is clear ... And no one gives a shit if a State cannot figure out how to follow their own laws correctly.
> It's not a wild goose chase ... There is a case to be made.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that these states, like Michigan, cannot figure out how to follow their own laws.
> The Secretary of State there just didn't bother to involve the state legislature when she unilaterally
> changed state election law. She was taking her guidance from other sources.
> 
> _"Benson has received the endorsement and financial assistance of the *Secretary of State Project (SOS Project)*, a 527 political organization whose purpose, according to its website, was to "wrestling control of the country from the Republican Party" through the process of "removing their political operatives from deciding who can vote and whose votes will count," namely the office of Secretary of State in many cases. The SOS Project received its funding from the George Soros-backed Democracy Alliance._" Jocelyn Benson - Ballotpedia
Click to expand...


She did not change any election laws unilaterally. That is your first lie. The second one is that Republicans will do anything they can to make it harder for people to vote. She has served the people of Michigan well.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it refers to election laws, it refers only to state election laws.  Please quote anywhere it does otherwise.  All elections in this country are run by states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I knew you couldn't quote anything.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

Why do you think it's my job to educate you??


----------



## Faun

busybee01 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.
> 
> _I'm laughing at the audience._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.
> 
> Plus, the gloating after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine...I'm sure that after Biden destroys all those new businesses in Black areas, you will help pay their bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden should probably be paying some bills to you.....as he's living rent free in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to admit that I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
> Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
> You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....perhaps silly attempts at insults are all you have left as you abandon the topic of the thread.
> 
> You stick with your 'feelings'. I'll stick with mocking this steaming pseudo-legal turd of a lawsuit from Texas. And its intended audience.
> 
> Deal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with economic reality...every strata of America has done better under Trump than under any other President.
> *You're* the one who claims you hate (a *feeling*) him and can't specify a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you start at your opponent's 5 yard line, it is not too hard to score. The unemplyment rats was under 5 when Trump took office. Trump has never hard a yearly GDP over 3%.
Click to expand...

He's the only president on record to accomplish that. He's also never had a quarter of GDP growth rech 4%.


----------



## busybee01

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> The complaint itself is hypocritical. It complains that state courts can't change laws governing elections but simultaneously asks the SCOTUS to suspend laws governing safe harbor and the meeting of the electoral college.
> 
> 
> 
> *Courts are not supposed to change laws.  That is a function of the legislature.
> 
> Only commie marxist globalists want to rule a nation through the courts, just like they did in Nazi Germany for illegitimate Hitler.  Joe Biden is illegitimate and is a Senile Puppet of China, Big Tech, and Russia, The UN and should not be allowed within 200 yards of The White House ever. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Stumpy, the Texas lawsuit is asking for the SCOTUS to extend the Dec. 14 deadline for certification of presidential electors, i.e., change the law. Which they can't do.
> 
> Glad to see even you think this lawsuit is bogus, even if you still don't know why you think that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If GA can do it, then why can't SCOTUS?
Click to expand...


Georgia changed no laws.


----------



## busybee01

Osiris-ODS said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would Republicans object to a primarty that didn't affect them?  That's a bogus argument, just like all your other arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOLOLOL
> 
> You're such a fucking moron, you don't even realize you just propped up my point in a 24K golden frame.
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking moron, if it was unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if it's Democrats or Republicans. If it was unconstitutional, it would have been unconstitutional for all political parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also foretold the future.  Biden got more votes than Trump in the Pennsylvania primary.
> 
> Biden - 1,264,624
> 
> Trump - 1,053,616
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a joke right? Trump was the incumbent who had no opponents in the primary. Yet he received historically high primary votes across the country. In previous primaries incumbent presidents regularly receive less votes than candidates from the opposing party, for example, Romney received more votes in the Republican primary than Obama (incumbent) for the Democrats.
Click to expand...


Biden had no opposition either as Sanders had dropped out.


----------



## protectionist

busybee01 said:


> Untrue. The legislature can delegate that authority to other bodies such as in Michigan where voters can initiate a proposition that can be voted on by voters. The proposition won by a 2-1 margin. That allowed no-excuse mail in balloting in Michigan.


FALSE. What you are alleging, is in violation of the US Constitution Article 2, section 1, and the state (Sect of State, Governor, etc) can neither bypass the legislature, or pass laws to allow that, or have the legislature delegate its power to non-legislative entity.

The US Constitution is the law of the land. If it could be changed any time some state officials feel like it , we wouldn't have a US Constitution at all.


----------



## Faun

Moonglow said:


> The Constitution has entrusted the states to determine their electors in a presidential election. Consistent with Michigan law, the State of Michigan has certified its presidential vote and the election in Michigan is over. The challenge here is an unprecedented one, without factual foundation or a valid legal basis. This Court should summarily dismiss the motion to file the bill of complaint. To do otherwise would make this Court the arbiter of all future national elections.
> 
> 
> 
> The Trumpets can't stop breathing their own entrails without understanding the meaning of the actions of the AG's under Trump's spell...Trump's word is worthless to me and the Supreme Court will agree that these allegations are not a solid basis to disenfranchise millions of voters because one man is throwing a tantrum....
Click to expand...

It will not end well...


----------



## protectionist

Moonglow said:


> What exactly are they doing unconstitutionally to disenfranchise all the voters?


I'll answer that with the words of the Texas AG who initiated the suit, with *the exact answer to your question in bold print.*

“The four states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election,”

“The battleground states flooded their people with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements as to how they were received, evaluated and counted. *Those changes* are inconsistent with relevant state laws and *were* *made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures,*” *The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution*."

“Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections."


----------



## busybee01

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> The complaint itself is hypocritical. It complains that state courts can't change laws governing elections but simultaneously asks the SCOTUS to suspend laws governing safe harbor and the meeting of the electoral college.
> 
> 
> 
> *Courts are not supposed to change laws.  That is a function of the legislature.
> 
> Only commie marxist globalists want to rule a nation through the courts, just like they did in Nazi Germany for illegitimate Hitler.  Joe Biden is illegitimate and is a Senile Puppet of China, Big Tech, and Russia, The UN and should not be allowed within 200 yards of The White House ever. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Stumpy, the Texas lawsuit is asking for the SCOTUS to extend the Dec. 14 deadline for certification of presidential electors, i.e., change the law. Which they can't do.
> 
> Glad to see even you think this lawsuit is bogus, even if you still don't know why you think that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If GA can do it, then why can't SCOTUS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Georgia didn't extend that date, fucking moron. You should know that since today is only the 10th.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I say it did extend the date.  How could GA possibly extend the safe harbor date?  GA did change its election laws, however.   Rather, that spineless cuck governor and the douchebag SOS did.
Click to expand...


No they did not.


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know the court isn’t going to take this a insane case, right?
> 
> 
> 
> They have to, or else they wouldn't be upholding* the US Constitution,* which is the crux of the case.  If they don't take this case, they don't exist.
Click to expand...


The US Constitution has nothing to do with this case.


----------



## busybee01

Indeependent said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now we have 17 states joining with Texas.   Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hilbilly states of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a trend. Biden won Georgia because of the suburban vote which voted for a Republican governor just 6 years ago. It will only get worse as rural states lose voters while the suburbs gain voters. The states that went to Trump are at the bottom in education. The red states are hillbillies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Teachers and non-MD Health Care Workers are not quite the most highly educated.
> You Liberals flatter yourselves way too much but you can get away with that because you hang out with each other.
Click to expand...


Trump supporters are the dumbest people on the planet.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> 
> 
> And that is a GOOD thing, trust me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the sophisticated people I know want to live with the hillbillys when they retire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or, with each other as they slowly shift States Blue.
> 
> Ask Texas, Georgia and Arizona.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what happens when Liberals are afraid of the Blue War Zone they created and they flee to Safe States.
> Of course, these Liberals are still Mentally Ill and turn the Safe State into yet another Blue War Zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or they sell their homes from States with high property values for tons of money and move to States with low property values and live large.
> 
> Its a similar situation for ex-pats moving to say, Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's why Elan Musk told CA to pound sand and moved to TX, yep, must be. LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elon Musk isn't who is turning Arizona, Georgia and Texas blue.
Click to expand...


No, that would be all the other refugees flooding out of the shining example of the shit policies you cherish.  Granted, many of them are still too stupid from being "educated" by the school policies you also think are spiffy to make the connection between "Where we came from sucked" and "We voted for the policies that made them suck".  But hopefully, some of them will eventually learn what a pile of garbage you're espousing, even if you're too brainwashed to do so.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those four states didn't follow the law in their state.  The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature.  That didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have said here is untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These states followed the relevent laws in their state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie, GA required ID from some voters, not from others. In PA some counties allowed voters to cure defective ballots and not in others. Both violates the States and federal due process clauses and State election laws.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA curing issue was already adjudicated by the federal courts and found to be perfectly legal. Appeals to the Supreme Court have never received cert.
Click to expand...


"Have never received cert . . . in the whole 24 hours since the case was filed.  It MUST mean that the Supreme Court agrees with me!  It can't be because I'm a fucking moron who doesn't understand time."


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is illegal if it's not a law in the state, and unless the legislature voted to make it a law, then it's illegal.  The governor or state courts cannot change the law unilaterally.  What part of that don't you get?
> 
> 
> 
> Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010 Georgia Code ::  TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS ::  CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ::  ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS ::  PART 1 - GOVERNOR ::  § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> law.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
> PART 1 - GOVERNOR
> § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor*
> 
> (4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those powers don't apply to election law.  The Constitution grants those powers only to the state legislature.  How many times does that fact have to pounded into your thick skull?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but the SC has held that "the legislature" extends to the voters and to the courts as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter bullshit.
> 
> Please cite the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're asking for sources? You? Who routinely makes up steaming piles of pseudo-legal horseshit and can never back any of it?
Click to expand...


Um, you.


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Trumpets can't stop breathing their own entrails without understanding the meaning of the actions of the AG's under Trump's spell...Trump's word is worthless to me and the Supreme Court will agree that these allegations are not a solid basis to disenfranchise millions of voters because one man is throwing a tantrum....
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what's happening. It is PA, GA, WI, and MI that are disenfranchising all the voters of the USA by engaging in illegal UNCONSTITUTIONAL actions, which the other states are not engaging in.  They have violated* Constitution Article 2 Section 1 ("in such Manner as the Legislature therof may direct")*
> 
> As for Trump, he is merely reacting normally as one who has had something stolen from him.  But it's not just Trump who is the theft victim. It is all of America.
Click to expand...


You are the thieves who are trying to steal the election. All state laws were followed. Trump is acting just like a dictatorial thug. Att3empting to seize power in a coup.


----------



## Indeependent

busybee01 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now we have 17 states joining with Texas.   Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hilbilly states of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a trend. Biden won Georgia because of the suburban vote which voted for a Republican governor just 6 years ago. It will only get worse as rural states lose voters while the suburbs gain voters. The states that went to Trump are at the bottom in education. The red states are hillbillies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Teachers and non-MD Health Care Workers are not quite the most highly educated.
> You Liberals flatter yourselves way too much but you can get away with that because you hang out with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters are the dumbest people on the planet.
Click to expand...

Nah!
In fact, *you're* proof that Liberals are dumb as dog shit.


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly are they doing unconstitutionally to disenfranchise all the voters?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll answer that with the words of the Texas AG who initiated the suit, with *the exact answer to your question in bold print.*
> 
> “The four states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election,”
> 
> “The battleground states flooded their people with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements as to how they were received, evaluated and counted. *Those changes* are inconsistent with relevant state laws and *were* *made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures,*” *The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution*."
> 
> “Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections."
Click to expand...


There is nothing unlawful about sending out absentee ballot applications. The courts in Michigan said that state officials acted in a lawful manner. All state laws were followed. Specify which ones were not.


----------



## busybee01

Indeependent said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now we have 17 states joining with Texas.   Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hilbilly states of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a trend. Biden won Georgia because of the suburban vote which voted for a Republican governor just 6 years ago. It will only get worse as rural states lose voters while the suburbs gain voters. The states that went to Trump are at the bottom in education. The red states are hillbillies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Teachers and non-MD Health Care Workers are not quite the most highly educated.
> You Liberals flatter yourselves way too much but you can get away with that because you hang out with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters are the dumbest people on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah!
> In fact, *you're* proof that Liberals are dumb as dog shit.
Click to expand...


Trump supporters like you prove that dogshit is smarter than you are.


----------



## Indeependent

busybee01 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now we have 17 states joining with Texas.   Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hilbilly states of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a trend. Biden won Georgia because of the suburban vote which voted for a Republican governor just 6 years ago. It will only get worse as rural states lose voters while the suburbs gain voters. The states that went to Trump are at the bottom in education. The red states are hillbillies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Teachers and non-MD Health Care Workers are not quite the most highly educated.
> You Liberals flatter yourselves way too much but you can get away with that because you hang out with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters are the dumbest people on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah!
> In fact, *you're* proof that Liberals are dumb as dog shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters like you prove that dogshit is smarter than you are.
Click to expand...

Be *original*.
I know that request requires intelligence, so forget I asked.


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. The legislature can delegate that authority to other bodies such as in Michigan where voters can initiate a proposition that can be voted on by voters. The proposition won by a 2-1 margin. That allowed no-excuse mail in balloting in Michigan.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE. What you are alleging, is in violation of the US Constitution Article 2, section 1, and the state (Sect of State, Governor, etc) can neither bypass the legislature, or pass laws to allow that, or have the legislature delegate its power to non-legislative entity.
> 
> The US Constitution is the law of the land. If it could be changed any time some state officials feel like it , we wouldn't have a US Constitution at all.
Click to expand...


Yes they can. Michigan among other states allow voter propositions to be voted on and are bound by them. You lose. The US Constitution does not come into play. State legislatures can delegate their legislative powers to others.


----------



## busybee01

Indeependent said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now we have 17 states joining with Texas.   Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hilbilly states of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a trend. Biden won Georgia because of the suburban vote which voted for a Republican governor just 6 years ago. It will only get worse as rural states lose voters while the suburbs gain voters. The states that went to Trump are at the bottom in education. The red states are hillbillies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Teachers and non-MD Health Care Workers are not quite the most highly educated.
> You Liberals flatter yourselves way too much but you can get away with that because you hang out with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters are the dumbest people on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah!
> In fact, *you're* proof that Liberals are dumb as dog shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters like you prove that dogshit is smarter than you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be *original*.
> I know that request requires intelligence, so forget I asked.
Click to expand...


You are original. You are a original moron. You have been forgotten.


----------



## Indeependent

busybee01 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now we have 17 states joining with Texas.   Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hilbilly states of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a trend. Biden won Georgia because of the suburban vote which voted for a Republican governor just 6 years ago. It will only get worse as rural states lose voters while the suburbs gain voters. The states that went to Trump are at the bottom in education. The red states are hillbillies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Teachers and non-MD Health Care Workers are not quite the most highly educated.
> You Liberals flatter yourselves way too much but you can get away with that because you hang out with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters are the dumbest people on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah!
> In fact, *you're* proof that Liberals are dumb as dog shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters like you prove that dogshit is smarter than you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be *original*.
> I know that request requires intelligence, so forget I asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are original. You are a original moron. You have been forgotten.
Click to expand...

*a original *
You must teach English grammer.


----------



## protectionist

Faun said:


> He's the only president on record to accomplish that. He's also never had a quarter of GDP growth rech 4%.


FALSE!  The most recent quarter (3rd quarter of 2020) was *33.1%* (highest in US history).  






There also was a *4.2%* growth (2nd quarter of 2018), which the anti-Trump BEA reduced to a lesser amount.

Here is the BEA chart showing 4.2%  (2nd quarter of 2018) before they cut it down,  reported by the leftist magazine Mother Jones >>>





U.S. second-quarter GDP growth raised to 4.2 percent | Reuters

PS - note the continuous overall sinking of the Obama GDP's, on contrast to the continuous rising after Trump took over.  The infamous "V GRAPH"


----------



## Drop Dead Fred

The full text of the lawsuit is at 

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

Here's a summary of the lawsuit. If these things are true, then Democrats definitely stole the election.

A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit


----------



## Drop Dead Fred

busybee01 said:


> There is nothing unlawful about sending out absentee ballot applications. The courts in Michigan said that state officials acted in a lawful manner. All state laws were followed. Specify which ones were not.












						A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit
					

Texas claims that the presidential elections as held (and as directed by government officials outside the legislature) in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing ...




					www.americanthinker.com
				




Michigan

Violations of Election Law:

The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.

The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.

The Secretary of State also allowed absentee ballots to be requested online without signature verification.

Local election officials in Wayne County — containing 322,925 more ballots for Biden than for Trump — opened and processed mail-in ballots without poll-watchers present.

Local election officials in Wayne County also ignored the strict election law requirements of placing a written statement or stamp on each ballot envelope indicating that the voter signature was in fact checked and verified with the signature on file with the state.

Evidence of Fraud:

174,384 mail-in ballots in Wayne County had no valid registration number, indicating they likely resulted from election workers running the same ballots through the tabulator multiple times.

71% of Wayne County Absent Voter Counting Boards were unbalanced, where the number of people who checked in did not match the number of ballots cast.


----------



## Faun

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's the only president on record to accomplish that. He's also never had a quarter of GDP growth rech 4%.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  The most recent quarter (3rd quarter of 2020) was *33.1%* (highest in US history).  There also was a *4.2%* growth (2nd quarter of 2018), which the anti-Trump BEA reduced to a lesser amount.
> 
> Here is the BEA chart showing 4.2%  (2nd quarter of 2018) before they cut it down,  reported by the leftist magazine Mother Jones >>>
> 
> View attachment 427491
> 
> U.S. second-quarter GDP growth raised to 4.2 percent | Reuters
Click to expand...

You're right about Q3-2020. You're lying about Q2-2018 as evidenced by you posting an image that only goes up to 2018.

Earth to gramps-- this is 2020.  

Q2-2018 was 2.7%



			https://apps.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xlsx


----------



## Pogo

OKTexas said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.
> 
> And just HOW exactly is Texas "injured" by what the fuck some other state is doing?   Hm?
> 
> The reference Article II Section 1 Clause 2 reads, and we know it well by now:
> 
> >>  Each State shall appoint, *in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct*, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<
> 
> Read it again --- "in such Manner as the Legislature *thereof* may direct".  Not "in such Manner as the AG of Frickin' Texas may direct".
> 
> This clown should be disbarred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So tell the class, where does it say the State SOS can enter into a consent decree and alter what the legislature directed? Dumb fucking commie.
Click to expand...


Maybe this post comes in English.

Maybe not.


----------



## protectionist

Drop Dead Fred said:


> The full text of the lawsuit is at
> 
> https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf
> 
> Here's a summary of the lawsuit. If these things are true, then Democrats definitely stole the election.
> 
> A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit


Nobody needed to see this to know they stole the election. There have viral videos for more than a month, showing Republican poll watchers being denied entrance to voting halls, other Republican poll watchers being kicked out of voting halls, other Republican poll watchers forced to stand 6-30 feet away from the vote counters (where they couldn't see a thing), and others kept outside the voting hall, with large cardboard covers placed over the windows, so the Republican poll watchers couldn't see inside, and do their jobs of watching the vote counts.

Whole thing was a FARCE, and just these violations alone invalidated the entire election, without even looking at the mountain of other cheating that went on rampantly, all over the country.


----------



## Faun

Drop Dead Fred said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing unlawful about sending out absentee ballot applications. The courts in Michigan said that state officials acted in a lawful manner. All state laws were followed. Specify which ones were not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit
> 
> 
> Texas claims that the presidential elections as held (and as directed by government officials outside the legislature) in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanthinker.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michigan
> 
> Violations of Election Law:
> 
> The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
> 
> The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.
> 
> The Secretary of State also allowed absentee ballots to be requested online without signature verification.
> 
> Local election officials in Wayne County — containing 322,925 more ballots for Biden than for Trump — opened and processed mail-in ballots without poll-watchers present.
> 
> Local election officials in Wayne County also ignored the strict election law requirements of placing a written statement or stamp on each ballot envelope indicating that the voter signature was in fact checked and verified with the signature on file with the state.
> 
> Evidence of Fraud:
> 
> 174,384 mail-in ballots in Wayne County had no valid registration number, indicating they likely resulted from election workers running the same ballots through the tabulator multiple times.
> 
> 71% of Wayne County Absent Voter Counting Boards were unbalanced, where the number of people who checked in did not match the number of ballots cast.
Click to expand...

_*The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.*_

If that's what Texas' lawsuit is about, they're not just going to have their case thrown out of court -- they're going to be laughed out of court.

That didn't happen. Even the rumors about it didn't happen.

Impeached Trump tweeted that back in May about the Michigan primary... *and he got it wrong to boot.* which is why he deleted that bullshit tweet and replaced it with one claiming 7.7 million ballot *applications* were sent unsolicited  -- which is not against the law.









						Fact check: Trump falsely claims Michigan sent out absentee ballots and broke the law | CNN Politics
					

President Donald Trump falsely claimed Wednesday that Michigan had sent absentee ballots to all of its registered voters and that the state's secretary of state had somehow broken the law.




					www.cnn.com


----------



## Indeependent

Faun said:


> Drop Dead Fred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing unlawful about sending out absentee ballot applications. The courts in Michigan said that state officials acted in a lawful manner. All state laws were followed. Specify which ones were not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit
> 
> 
> Texas claims that the presidential elections as held (and as directed by government officials outside the legislature) in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanthinker.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michigan
> 
> Violations of Election Law:
> 
> The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
> 
> The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.
> 
> The Secretary of State also allowed absentee ballots to be requested online without signature verification.
> 
> Local election officials in Wayne County — containing 322,925 more ballots for Biden than for Trump — opened and processed mail-in ballots without poll-watchers present.
> 
> Local election officials in Wayne County also ignored the strict election law requirements of placing a written statement or stamp on each ballot envelope indicating that the voter signature was in fact checked and verified with the signature on file with the state.
> 
> Evidence of Fraud:
> 
> 174,384 mail-in ballots in Wayne County had no valid registration number, indicating they likely resulted from election workers running the same ballots through the tabulator multiple times.
> 
> 71% of Wayne County Absent Voter Counting Boards were unbalanced, where the number of people who checked in did not match the number of ballots cast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.*_
> 
> If that's what Texas' lawsuit is about, they're not just going to have their case thrown out of court -- they're going to be laughed out of court.
> 
> That didn't happen. Even the rumors about it didn't happen.
> 
> Impeached Trump tweeted that back in May about the Michigan primary... *and he got it wrong to boot.* which is why he deleted that bullshit tweet and replaced it with one claiming 7.7 million ballot *applications* were sent unsolicited  -- which is not against the law.
Click to expand...

How do you know it didn't happen?


----------



## protectionist

Faun said:


> You're right about Q3-2020. You're lying about Q2-2018 as evidenced by you posting an image that only goes up to 2018.
> 
> Earth to gramps-- this is 2020.
> 
> Q2-2018 was 2.7%
> 
> 
> 
> https://apps.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xlsx


Of course I'm right about Q3-2020.  which shows that YOU LIED about this >>_ "He's also never had a quarter of GDP growth rech 4%._"

A sfor the  image that only goes up to 2018, so what ?  It doesn't HAVE TO go past 2018.  I was referring to 2018.  2019 and 2020 are beside my point (point being 2nd quarter of 2018).

And you are lying that I'm lying (typical leftist behavior)

Q2-2018 was* 4.2%*

U.S. second-quarter GDP growth raised to 4.2 percent | Reuters


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Original Tree said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The SCOTUS is going to throw out every ballot that did not meet the state's election laws & standards.
> 
> They may even order new elections, or a forensic evaluation of the 4 states ballots.*
> 
> 
> 
> Stop doing this to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Stop trying to put criminals in The White House through Fraudulent, Invalid and Illegal Elections.  Start putting your crooked politicians in jail and restore faith in our elections.
> 
> Voter ID is a start.*
Click to expand...

Spare me your thinly veiled attempts to reduce voter turnout. Your Republican masters already admitted that lie years ago. Pay attention.


----------



## protectionist

Faun said:


> _*The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.*_
> 
> If that's what Texas' lawsuit is about, they're not just going to have their case thrown out of court -- they're going to be laughed out of court.


When you don't even know what the Texas lawsuit is about  (as shown by >_ "If that's what Texas' lawsuit is about"_), you shouldn't be in here posting about it.

I posted what the lawsuit is about (unconstitutional actions outside the legislature) earlier in the thread, as did other posters. Read the thread.


----------



## MisterBeale

Indeependent said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drop Dead Fred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing unlawful about sending out absentee ballot applications. The courts in Michigan said that state officials acted in a lawful manner. All state laws were followed. Specify which ones were not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit
> 
> 
> Texas claims that the presidential elections as held (and as directed by government officials outside the legislature) in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanthinker.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michigan
> 
> Violations of Election Law:
> 
> The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
> 
> The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.
> 
> The Secretary of State also allowed absentee ballots to be requested online without signature verification.
> 
> Local election officials in Wayne County — containing 322,925 more ballots for Biden than for Trump — opened and processed mail-in ballots without poll-watchers present.
> 
> Local election officials in Wayne County also ignored the strict election law requirements of placing a written statement or stamp on each ballot envelope indicating that the voter signature was in fact checked and verified with the signature on file with the state.
> 
> Evidence of Fraud:
> 
> 174,384 mail-in ballots in Wayne County had no valid registration number, indicating they likely resulted from election workers running the same ballots through the tabulator multiple times.
> 
> 71% of Wayne County Absent Voter Counting Boards were unbalanced, where the number of people who checked in did not match the number of ballots cast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.*_
> 
> If that's what Texas' lawsuit is about, they're not just going to have their case thrown out of court -- they're going to be laughed out of court.
> 
> That didn't happen. Even the rumors about it didn't happen.
> 
> Impeached Trump tweeted that back in May about the Michigan primary... *and he got it wrong to boot.* which is why he deleted that bullshit tweet and replaced it with one claiming 7.7 million ballot *applications* were sent unsolicited  -- which is not against the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know it didn't happen?
Click to expand...

I live in Michigan, I'm telling you, it didn't happen.  

Because of a natural disaster, I had to move residencies, THREE times. . . everywhere I went, those damn applications followed me. . .  but NOT ballots.

Both the dems, the repubs, and the state were sending them out. . . I think 7 million is probably on the low side.


----------



## protectionist

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Spare me your thinly veiled attempts to reduce voter turnout. Your Republican masters already admitted that lie years ago. Pay attention.


Too bad your Democrat masters don't admit their lie about increasing Democrat voter turnout, by allowing illegal alien voting (by the Millions)

Reducing that illegal voter turnout by having CITIZENSHIP PROOF voter ID is badly needed, always opposed by Democrat cheaters.


----------



## Toro

A sane Republican sides with Biden.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.*_
> 
> If that's what Texas' lawsuit is about, they're not just going to have their case thrown out of court -- they're going to be laughed out of court.
> 
> 
> 
> When you don't even know what the Texas lawsuit is about  (as shown by >_ "If that's what Texas' lawsuit is about"_), you shouldn't be in here posting about it.
> 
> I posted what the lawsuit is about (unconstitutional actions outside the legislature) earlier in the thread, as did other posters. Read the thread.
Click to expand...

The entire world has now seen the filing and is laughing at it and mocking it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

protectionist said:


> Too bad your Democrat masters don't admit their lie about increasing Democrat voter turnout, by allowing illegal alien voting (by the Millions)


Too bad you delusional liars couldn't find a shred of evidence of it, else that wouldn't matter. How frustrating it must be for you impotent losers to get outsmarted at every turn by the people you claim are stupid and inept.


----------



## protectionist

Drop Dead Fred said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing unlawful about sending out absentee ballot applications. The courts in Michigan said that state officials acted in a lawful manner. All state laws were followed. Specify which ones were not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit
> 
> 
> Texas claims that the presidential elections as held (and as directed by government officials outside the legislature) in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanthinker.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michigan
> 
> Violations of Election Law:
> 
> The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
> 
> The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.
> 
> The Secretary of State also allowed absentee ballots to be requested online without signature verification.
> 
> Local election officials in Wayne County — containing 322,925 more ballots for Biden than for Trump — opened and processed mail-in ballots without poll-watchers present.
> 
> Local election officials in Wayne County also ignored the strict election law requirements of placing a written statement or stamp on each ballot envelope indicating that the voter signature was in fact checked and verified with the signature on file with the state.
> 
> Evidence of Fraud:
> 
> 174,384 mail-in ballots in Wayne County had no valid registration number, indicating they likely resulted from election workers running the same ballots through the tabulator multiple times.
> 
> 71% of Wayne County Absent Voter Counting Boards were unbalanced, where the number of people who checked in did not match the number of ballots cast.
Click to expand...

AND the Secretary of State has no authority to do any of these things, as the US Constitution allows only the legislature to act.

Also illegally allowed was the counting of ballots for days after election day, counting ballots without a date stamp. and back-dating ballots.  All done *unconstitutionally* by the Governor and Sect of State, neither of whom has the right to do it.

US Constitution Article 2, Section 1.


----------



## Toro

protectionist said:


> AND the Secretary of State has no authority to do any of these things, as the US Constitution allows only the legislature to act.
> 
> Also illegally allowed was the counting of ballots for days after election day, counting ballots without a date stamp. and back-dating ballots.  All done *unconstitutionally* by the Governor and Sect of State, neither of whom has the right to do it.
> 
> US Constitution Article 2, Section 1.



The courts have repeatedly dismissed your arguments.

You're 1-57 in the courts for a reason.


----------



## Adrenochrome Junkie

This country has been at a cold civil war for 4 years. It’s about to go hot. 

Trump tweeted this morning “things are going to escalate dramatically”

22 states have joined Texas in its lawsuit that has been brought upon to the Supreme Court. The “New Union” is forming

With all the claims of fraud, Trump isn’t going to lay over nor are his people They will never accept Joe Biden and will never allow him to step foot in the White House. 

Democrat voters are either overconfident or extremely naive about what is going on. They are laughing at the thought of a civil war. As usual, they aren’t taking things seriously. Meanwhile 90% of guns and ammunition is owned by Conservatives. 

Everyday conservatives are getting more angry and upset that nothing is happening.everyone is on edge. I just don’t see the courts or Supreme Court doing anything about it. The swamp is just too deep. Hell, it goes all the way to the core of the earth and back through China!

Get ready Liberals (because I know you’re not)


----------



## iceberg

Toro said:


> A sane Republican sides with Biden.
> 
> View attachment 427451


pretty sure going around your constitutional processes and laws is also a no no in our system.

not a good defense for what they did.


----------



## protectionist

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Too bad you delusional liars couldn't find a shred of evidence of it, else that wouldn't matter. How frustrating it must be for you impotent losers to get outsmarted at every turn by the people you claim are stupid and inept.


Evidence of illegal alien voting has been around FOR YEARS. This just shows that not only do information-deprived victims of liberal OMISSION media not get information, but they haven't BEEN getting it FOR YEARS.  They don't know how ignorant they are.

Texas Democrats ask noncitizens to register to vote

Poll: 13% of Illegal Aliens ADMIT They Vote - California Political Review

https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/Report_Alien-Invasion-in-Virginia.pdf

https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/Safe-Spaces_Final.pdf

Finally Proof of Illegal Alien Voting

Noncitizens, Voting Violations and U.S. Elections | Federation for American Immigration Reform

Illegal Aliens Really Do Vote – a Lot

https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/Philadelphia-Litigation-Report.pdf

Exclusive: Florida Investigating Potential Non-Citizen Voters


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know the court isn’t going to take this a insane case, right?
> 
> 
> 
> They have to, or else they wouldn't be upholding* the US Constitution,* which is the crux of the case.  If they don't take this case, they don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Constitution has nothing to do with this case.
Click to expand...


Well, other than the fact that the lawsuit specifically cites violations of the US Constitution, sure.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

iceberg said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> A sane Republican sides with Biden.
> 
> View attachment 427451
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pretty sure going around your constitutional processes and laws is also a no no in our system.
> 
> not a good defense for what they did.
Click to expand...

Is that the conclusion of your crack research team? Haha...dude. The entire world is laughing at the filing. The educated people who are not admitting it is absurd are lying to the cult to take their money or their votes.


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now we have 17 states joining with Texas.   Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hilbilly states of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a trend. Biden won Georgia because of the suburban vote which voted for a Republican governor just 6 years ago. It will only get worse as rural states lose voters while the suburbs gain voters. The states that went to Trump are at the bottom in education. The red states are hillbillies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Teachers and non-MD Health Care Workers are not quite the most highly educated.
> You Liberals flatter yourselves way too much but you can get away with that because you hang out with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters are the dumbest people on the planet.
Click to expand...


Except for diehard leftist drones like you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

protectionist said:


> Evidence of illegal alien voting has been around FOR YEARS.


You have not one shred of any significant instance of this. None. You are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Toro

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence of illegal alien voting has been around FOR YEARS.
> 
> 
> 
> You have not one shred of any significant instance of this. None. You are embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...


When they live in a cult, embarrassment is irrelevant.


----------



## Faun

Indeependent said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drop Dead Fred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing unlawful about sending out absentee ballot applications. The courts in Michigan said that state officials acted in a lawful manner. All state laws were followed. Specify which ones were not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit
> 
> 
> Texas claims that the presidential elections as held (and as directed by government officials outside the legislature) in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanthinker.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michigan
> 
> Violations of Election Law:
> 
> The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
> 
> The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.
> 
> The Secretary of State also allowed absentee ballots to be requested online without signature verification.
> 
> Local election officials in Wayne County — containing 322,925 more ballots for Biden than for Trump — opened and processed mail-in ballots without poll-watchers present.
> 
> Local election officials in Wayne County also ignored the strict election law requirements of placing a written statement or stamp on each ballot envelope indicating that the voter signature was in fact checked and verified with the signature on file with the state.
> 
> Evidence of Fraud:
> 
> 174,384 mail-in ballots in Wayne County had no valid registration number, indicating they likely resulted from election workers running the same ballots through the tabulator multiple times.
> 
> 71% of Wayne County Absent Voter Counting Boards were unbalanced, where the number of people who checked in did not match the number of ballots cast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.*_
> 
> If that's what Texas' lawsuit is about, they're not just going to have their case thrown out of court -- they're going to be laughed out of court.
> 
> That didn't happen. Even the rumors about it didn't happen.
> 
> Impeached Trump tweeted that back in May about the Michigan primary... *and he got it wrong to boot.* which is why he deleted that bullshit tweet and replaced it with one claiming 7.7 million ballot *applications* were sent unsolicited  -- which is not against the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know it didn't happen?
Click to expand...

LOLOLOL 

Can you not think for yourself?

Dumbfuck, they already mailed out 7.7 million *applications*. Everyone receiving one can check the box to automatically receive absentee ballots for future elections. Meaning....

a) there's no news reporting 7.7 million ballots were mailed unsolicited for the general election; and 

b) ballots mailed out would have been based on 7.7 million ballot *applications* mailed out in the Spring; and

c) mailing out *7.7 million applications* in the Spring to all registered voters in Michigan was done by computer. So if they were going to mail ballots in the fall, also by computer, there would have been more than 7.7 million registered voters as many people in Michigan registered to vote over the summer; and

d) this farce is based on a Trump tweet back in May which he himself deleted when it was brought to his attention that he got it wrong...





... and

e) rightards are the biggest fucking idiots on the planet. Your only hope of salvaging this fiasco lies in the hopes that AmericanThinker, who published this, got it wrong and that Texas isn't really suing over this.


----------



## protectionist

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You have not one shred of any significant instance of this. None. You are embarrassing yourself.


HA HA HA. Are you blind > I just posted NINE links for it - and each of these have sublinks - couple of dozen alltogether.  Not enough ? Maybe require oh, 100 ?

Plus, you talking about evidence shows AGAIN, you are clueless on this. That's what happens when you watch liberal OMISSION media, like ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, etc. Don't have to be an airhead ALL your life. Watch Newsmax. Stop being information- deprived.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

protectionist said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not one shred of any significant instance of this. None. You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> HA HA HA. Are you blind > I just posted NINE links for it - and each of these have sublinks - couple of dozen alltogether.  Not enough ? Maybe require oh, 100 ?
> 
> Plus, you talking about evidence shows AGAIN, you are clueless on this. That's what happens when you watch liberal OMISSION media, like ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, etc. Don't have to be an airhead ALL your life. Watch Newsmax. Stop being information- deprived.
Click to expand...

Not one of those links contained any evidence for what you are suggesting, you shameless liar. As anyone can see for themselves. And we all know you never read any of them anyway.


----------



## Faun

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right about Q3-2020. You're lying about Q2-2018 as evidenced by you posting an image that only goes up to 2018.
> 
> Earth to gramps-- this is 2020.
> 
> Q2-2018 was 2.7%
> 
> 
> 
> https://apps.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xlsx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I'm right about Q3-2020.  which shows that YOU LIED about this >>_ "He's also never had a quarter of GDP growth rech 4%._"
> 
> A sfor the  image that only goes up to 2018, so what ?  It doesn't HAVE TO go past 2018.  I was referring to 2018.  2019 and 2020 are beside my point (point being 2nd quarter of 2018).
> 
> And you are lying that I'm lying (typical leftist behavior)
> 
> Q2-2018 was* 4.2%*
> 
> U.S. second-quarter GDP growth raised to 4.2 percent | Reuters
> 
> View attachment 427500
Click to expand...

Dumbfuck, you lied, that's why you can't post a graph beyond 2018.

I even posted a link to the *current* data which shows Q2-2018 was 2.7%, not 4.2%.



			https://apps.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xlsx


----------



## Faun

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.*_
> 
> If that's what Texas' lawsuit is about, they're not just going to have their case thrown out of court -- they're going to be laughed out of court.
> 
> 
> 
> When you don't even know what the Texas lawsuit is about  (as shown by >_ "If that's what Texas' lawsuit is about"_), you shouldn't be in here posting about it.
> 
> I posted what the lawsuit is about (unconstitutional actions outside the legislature) earlier in the thread, as did other posters. Read the thread.
Click to expand...

I replied to another poster who posted that from an AmericanThinker article. If you think that's wrong, take it up with them. I'm too busy laughing my ass off at you yahoos.


----------



## protectionist

Faun said:


> LOLOLOL  Can you not think for yourself?
> 
> Dumbfuck, they already mailed out 7.7 million *applications*. Everyone receiving one can check the box to automatically receive absentee ballots for future elections. Meaning....
> 
> a) there's no news reporting 7.7 million ballots were mailed unsolicited for the general election; and
> 
> b) ballots mailed out would have been based on 7.7 million ballot *applications* mailed out in the Spring; and
> 
> c) mailing out *7.7 million applications* in the Spring to all registered voters in Michigan was done by computer. So if they were going to mail ballots in the fall, also by computer, there would have been more than 7.7 million registered voters as many people in Michigan registered to vote over the summer; and
> 
> d) this farce is based on a Trump tweet back in May which he himself deleted when it was brought to his attention that he got it wrong...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and
> 
> e) rightards are the biggest fucking idiots on the planet. Your only hope of salvaging this fiasco lies in the hopes that AmericanThinker, who published this, got it wrong and that Texas isn't really suing over this.


But the ones you call _"biggest fucking idiots"_ know that this is a CONSTITUTIONAL lawsuit/issue (Article 2, Section 1), while you are still babbling about ballot applications.  You still don't know what the hell this whole thing (1st 3 words of the OP title >
*Texas Files Lawsuit*

is about, and you're displaying that with flying colors.


----------



## Faun

DemonRat Hater said:


> This country has been at a cold civil war for 4 years. It’s about to go hot.
> 
> Trump tweeted this morning “things are going to escalate dramatically”
> 
> 22 states have joined Texas in its lawsuit that has been brought upon to the Supreme Court. The “New Union” is forming
> 
> With all the claims of fraud, Trump isn’t going to lay over nor are his people They will never accept Joe Biden and will never allow him to step foot in the White House.
> 
> Democrat voters are either overconfident or extremely naive about what is going on. They are laughing at the thought of a civil war. As usual, they aren’t taking things seriously. Meanwhile 90% of guns and ammunition is owned by Conservatives.
> 
> Everyday conservatives are getting more angry and upset that nothing is happening.everyone is on edge. I just don’t see the courts or Supreme Court doing anything about it. The swamp is just too deep. Hell, it goes all the way to the core of the earth and back through China!
> 
> Get ready Liberals (because I know you’re not)


*"With all the claims of fraud"*

With all the claims of fraud, of which none have been proven.

There ^^^ fixed that for ya.


----------



## Faun

Cecilie1200 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know the court isn’t going to take this a insane case, right?
> 
> 
> 
> They have to, or else they wouldn't be upholding* the US Constitution,* which is the crux of the case.  If they don't take this case, they don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Constitution has nothing to do with this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, other than the fact that the lawsuit specifically cites violations of the US Constitution, sure.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

You mean violations like 7.7 million absentee ballots sent out which was actually fake news put out by the president back in May??


----------



## bripat9643

colfax_m said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it refers to election laws, it refers only to state election laws. Please quote anywhere it does otherwise. All elections in this country are run by states.
> 
> 
> 
> Article 2, section 1, Clause 4
> 
> Look it up. Tell me what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That one is the biggest fucking moron on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  Your hatred for me only shows that you fear me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you happen to look up that little part of the constitution that you think doesn't exist? And did you happen to refer back to the part of the lawsuit that asks SCOTUS to rewrite the law?
Click to expand...

Why should I play your little game?  Quote this "election law" that you believe exists in the Constitution.  Otherwise, shut the fuck up.  I'm not interested in playing your little game.


----------



## Faun

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOLOL  Can you not think for yourself?
> 
> Dumbfuck, they already mailed out 7.7 million *applications*. Everyone receiving one can check the box to automatically receive absentee ballots for future elections. Meaning....
> 
> a) there's no news reporting 7.7 million ballots were mailed unsolicited for the general election; and
> 
> b) ballots mailed out would have been based on 7.7 million ballot *applications* mailed out in the Spring; and
> 
> c) mailing out *7.7 million applications* in the Spring to all registered voters in Michigan was done by computer. So if they were going to mail ballots in the fall, also by computer, there would have been more than 7.7 million registered voters as many people in Michigan registered to vote over the summer; and
> 
> d) this farce is based on a Trump tweet back in May which he himself deleted when it was brought to his attention that he got it wrong...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and
> 
> e) rightards are the biggest fucking idiots on the planet. Your only hope of salvaging this fiasco lies in the hopes that AmericanThinker, who published this, got it wrong and that Texas isn't really suing over this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the ones you call _"biggest fucking idiots"_ know that this is a CONSTITUTIONAL lawsuit/issue (Article 2, Section 1), while you are still babbling about ballot applications.  You still don't know what the hell this whole thing (1st 3 words of the OP title >
> *Texas Files Lawsuit*
> 
> is about, and you're displaying that with flying colors.
Click to expand...

Dumbfuck, I quoted what is being reported about the Texas lawsuit. 

And while a bunch of states have lined up behind Texas, a bunch of other states have lined up behind the Constitution...

_WASHINGTON__ — More than two dozen states filed motions with the Supreme Court on Thursday opposing Texas' bid to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden's wins in four battleground states, a long-shot legal move that Pennsylvania blasted as a "seditious abuse of the judicial process."_​


----------



## colfax_m

bripat9643 said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it refers to election laws, it refers only to state election laws. Please quote anywhere it does otherwise. All elections in this country are run by states.
> 
> 
> 
> Article 2, section 1, Clause 4
> 
> Look it up. Tell me what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That one is the biggest fucking moron on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  Your hatred for me only shows that you fear me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you happen to look up that little part of the constitution that you think doesn't exist? And did you happen to refer back to the part of the lawsuit that asks SCOTUS to rewrite the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should I play your little game?  Quote this "election law" that you believe exists in the Constitution.  Otherwise, shut the fuck up.  I'm not interested in playing your little game.
Click to expand...

Already did. In fact, it’s in the quote to this very thread.

article 2, section 1, clause 4

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.


----------



## protectionist

Faun said:


> Dumbfuck, you lied, that's why you can't post a graph beyond 2018.
> 
> I even posted a link to the *current* data which shows Q2-2018 was 2.7%, not 4.2%.
> 
> 
> 
> https://apps.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xlsx


What the hell does 2019 and 2020 have to do with 2nd quarter of 2018.  Getting desperate to scrounge up debate material ?

And OH, you_ "posted a link to the *current* data which shows Q2-2018 was 2.7%, not 4.2%."_

HA HA HA. one little problem there Funny Farm Faun.  *I already noted *that the reason the _"current data" _as you call it, is what it is , is because the lying, cheating, full of shit BEA, loaded with Obama holdovers, cooked the books to make it appear that way.

So you're a little LATE with your "current data" line.  Ah, but libbies will challenge that by saying WHAT EVIDENCE do you have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
Well, the evidence, my information-deprived victim of liberal OMISSION/  DISTORTION media and govt agencies, friend, is that the BEA has made lots of changes in their numbers, continuously over time.  And guess what consistency shows up in all these changes. > They all change making Obama look better, and Trump look worse - statistical anomaly.  Ho hum.  Yawn****

Now go wash out your mouth with soap, and then come back and report to me.


----------



## Adrenochrome Junkie

Faun said:


> DemonRat Hater said:
> 
> 
> 
> This country has been at a cold civil war for 4 years. It’s about to go hot.
> 
> Trump tweeted this morning “things are going to escalate dramatically”
> 
> 22 states have joined Texas in its lawsuit that has been brought upon to the Supreme Court. The “New Union” is forming
> 
> With all the claims of fraud, Trump isn’t going to lay over nor are his people They will never accept Joe Biden and will never allow him to step foot in the White House.
> 
> Democrat voters are either overconfident or extremely naive about what is going on. They are laughing at the thought of a civil war. As usual, they aren’t taking things seriously. Meanwhile 90% of guns and ammunition is owned by Conservatives.
> 
> Everyday conservatives are getting more angry and upset that nothing is happening.everyone is on edge. I just don’t see the courts or Supreme Court doing anything about it. The swamp is just too deep. Hell, it goes all the way to the core of the earth and back through China!
> 
> Get ready Liberals (because I know you’re not)
> 
> 
> 
> *"With all the claims of fraud"*
> 
> With all the claims of fraud, of which none have been proven.
> 
> There ^^^ fixed that for ya.
Click to expand...

Whether you believe or them or not doesn’t matter. It’s what the people believe. 

The government is “for the people and is of the people”

And if the people are happy with the government, the people will take the government back. Which is why the founders created the 2nd amendment. 

But you’ll never understand that because you don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment and consider the founders racist and should be erased from history


----------



## protectionist

colfax_m said:


> Already did. In fact, it’s in the quote to this very thread.
> 
> article 2, section 1, clause 4
> 
> The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.


It might interest you to know that if this whole thing keeps rolling to Jan. 6, then yes it will be the Congress (US House) that will select the electors. But it won't be by popular vote. It is done by STATES, each one having one vote, and that puts Donald Trump in the White House for 4 MORE YEARS, undoubtedly.


----------



## protectionist

DemonRat Hater said:


> Whether you believe or them or not doesn’t matter. It’s what the people believe.
> 
> The government is “for the people and is of the people”
> 
> And if the people are happy with the government, the people will take the government back. Which is why the founders created the 2nd amendment.
> 
> But you’ll never understand that because you don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment and consider the founders racist and should be erased from history


BTW, since you mentioned the 2nd Amendment.  Even if Biden WERE able to cheat his way into the White House (highly doubtful), his $200 tax on all guns and magazines would be shot to hell by the SCOTUS, on grounds of violation of the Constitution's 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Faun

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbfuck, you lied, that's why you can't post a graph beyond 2018.
> 
> I even posted a link to the *current* data which shows Q2-2018 was 2.7%, not 4.2%.
> 
> 
> 
> https://apps.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xlsx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does 2019 and 2020 have to do with 2nd quarter of 2018.  Getting desperate to scrounge up debate material ?
> 
> And OH, you_ "posted a link to the *current* data which shows Q2-2018 was 2.7%, not 4.2%."_
> 
> HA HA HA. one little problem there Funny Farm Faun.  *I already noted *that the reason the _"current data" _as you call it, is what it is , is because the lying, cheating, full of shit BEA, loaded with Obama holdovers, cooked the books to make it appear that way.
> 
> So you're a little LATE with your "current data" line.  Ah, but libbies will challenge that by saying WHAT EVIDENCE do you have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Well, the evidence, my information-deprived victim of liberal OMISSION/  DISTORTION media and govt agencies, friend, is that the BEA has made lots of changes in their numbers, continuously over time.  And guess what consistency shows up in all these changes. > They all change making Obama look better, and Trump look worse - statistical anomaly.  Ho hum.  Yawn****
> 
> Now go wash out your mouth with soap, and then come back and report to me.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

What it has to do with it is you're lying. That's why I'm posting directly from the BEA's official website while you refuse to.



​


----------



## Faun

DemonRat Hater said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DemonRat Hater said:
> 
> 
> 
> This country has been at a cold civil war for 4 years. It’s about to go hot.
> 
> Trump tweeted this morning “things are going to escalate dramatically”
> 
> 22 states have joined Texas in its lawsuit that has been brought upon to the Supreme Court. The “New Union” is forming
> 
> With all the claims of fraud, Trump isn’t going to lay over nor are his people They will never accept Joe Biden and will never allow him to step foot in the White House.
> 
> Democrat voters are either overconfident or extremely naive about what is going on. They are laughing at the thought of a civil war. As usual, they aren’t taking things seriously. Meanwhile 90% of guns and ammunition is owned by Conservatives.
> 
> Everyday conservatives are getting more angry and upset that nothing is happening.everyone is on edge. I just don’t see the courts or Supreme Court doing anything about it. The swamp is just too deep. Hell, it goes all the way to the core of the earth and back through China!
> 
> Get ready Liberals (because I know you’re not)
> 
> 
> 
> *"With all the claims of fraud"*
> 
> With all the claims of fraud, of which none have been proven.
> 
> There ^^^ fixed that for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether you believe or them or not doesn’t matter. It’s what the people believe.
> 
> The government is “for the people and is of the people”
> 
> And if the people are happy with the government, the people will take the government back. Which is why the founders created the 2nd amendment.
> 
> But you’ll never understand that because you don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment and consider the founders racist and should be erased from history
Click to expand...

I never said you weren't free to believe your delusions. I'm merely pointing out your beliefs are delusional.

And as far as the 2nd Amendment, I do believe in it. I've had a gun for many years now. I also don't believe the Founders should be erased from history.

I'll just chalk those up to more of your delusions.


----------



## protectionist

Faun said:


> Dumbfuck, I quoted what is being reported about the Texas lawsuit.
> 
> And while a bunch of states have lined up behind Texas, a bunch of other states have lined up behind the Constitution...
> 
> _WASHINGTON__ — More than two dozen states filed motions with the Supreme Court on Thursday opposing Texas' bid to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden's wins in four battleground states, a long-shot legal move that Pennsylvania blasted as a "seditious abuse of the judicial process."_​


HA HA. But you have it BACKWARDS. It is Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and many others who are lined up behind the Constitution. That is the crux of the case.  It is the 4 cheater states who are in VIOLATION of the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1), that are the defendants.

And while you're washing out your mouth with soap, gargle with some strong mouthwash too.


----------



## colfax_m

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbfuck, I quoted what is being reported about the Texas lawsuit.
> 
> And while a bunch of states have lined up behind Texas, a bunch of other states have lined up behind the Constitution...
> 
> _WASHINGTON__ — More than two dozen states filed motions with the Supreme Court on Thursday opposing Texas' bid to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden's wins in four battleground states, a long-shot legal move that Pennsylvania blasted as a "seditious abuse of the judicial process."_​
> 
> 
> 
> HA HA. But you have it BACKWARDS. It is Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and many others who are lined up behind the Constitution. That is the crux of the case.  It is the 4 cheater states who are in VIOLATION of the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1), that are the defendants.
> 
> And while you're washing out your mouth with soap, gargle with some strong mouthwash too.
Click to expand...

Then explain why Texas isn’t holding itself to the same standards as these “cheater” states?


----------



## Faun

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbfuck, I quoted what is being reported about the Texas lawsuit.
> 
> And while a bunch of states have lined up behind Texas, a bunch of other states have lined up behind the Constitution...
> 
> _WASHINGTON__ — More than two dozen states filed motions with the Supreme Court on Thursday opposing Texas' bid to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden's wins in four battleground states, a long-shot legal move that Pennsylvania blasted as a "seditious abuse of the judicial process."_​
> 
> 
> 
> HA HA. But you have it BACKWARDS. It is Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and many others who are lined up behind the Constitution. That is the crux of the case.  It is the 4 cheater states who are in VIOLATION of the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1), that are the defendants.
> 
> And while you're washing out your mouth with soap, gargle with some strong mouthwash too.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

You mean with a lawsuit based on a Trump tweet that he deleted because he got it wrong? That's you're idea of Constitutional, gramps?


----------



## protectionist

Faun said:


> LOLOL
> 
> What it has to do with it is you're lying. That's why I'm posting directly from the BEA's official website while you refuse to.
> 
> 
> 
> ​


Oh the _"official website."_  HA HA HA. Isn't THAT nice.  And exactly what the hell does THAT have to do with anything? Are you now claiming that what I showed (33.1% jump in GDP) is not correct ? If not , then who the hell cares where you posted from, or where I posted from ? Have you been getting enough sleep ?

Wow, 7:10 PM. I'm off the computer. Got some real life to attend to.


----------



## Faun

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> What it has to do with it is you're lying. That's why I'm posting directly from the BEA's official website while you refuse to.
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the _"official website."_  HA HA HA. Isn't THAT nice.  And exactly what the hell does THAT have to do with anything? Are you now claiming that what I showed (33.1% jump in GDP) is not correct ? If not , then who the hell cares where you posted from, or where I posted from ? Have you been getting enough sleep ?
> 
> Wow, 7:10 PM. I'm off the computer. Got some real life to attend to.
Click to expand...

No, gramps, you're senile -- that graph shows Q2-2018 was 2.7%, not 4.2%.


----------



## Indeependent

Faun said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> What it has to do with it is you're lying. That's why I'm posting directly from the BEA's official website while you refuse to.
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the _"official website."_  HA HA HA. Isn't THAT nice.  And exactly what the hell does THAT have to do with anything? Are you now claiming that what I showed (33.1% jump in GDP) is not correct ? If not , then who the hell cares where you posted from, or where I posted from ? Have you been getting enough sleep ?
> 
> Wow, 7:10 PM. I'm off the computer. Got some real life to attend to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, gramps, you're senile -- that graph shows Q2-2018 was 2.7%, not 4.2%.
Click to expand...

You should be *happy*; why are you so *angry*?
Are you *always* angry?


----------



## Faun

Indeependent said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> What it has to do with it is you're lying. That's why I'm posting directly from the BEA's official website while you refuse to.
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the _"official website."_  HA HA HA. Isn't THAT nice.  And exactly what the hell does THAT have to do with anything? Are you now claiming that what I showed (33.1% jump in GDP) is not correct ? If not , then who the hell cares where you posted from, or where I posted from ? Have you been getting enough sleep ?
> 
> Wow, 7:10 PM. I'm off the computer. Got some real life to attend to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, gramps, you're senile -- that graph shows Q2-2018 was 2.7%, not 4.2%.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be *happy*; why are you so *angry*?
> Are you *always* angry?
Click to expand...

LOLOL

I'm laughing my ass off at you idiots. If you think laughter is anger, I can't help that.


----------



## Toro

iceberg said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> A sane Republican sides with Biden.
> 
> View attachment 427451
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pretty sure going around your constitutional processes and laws is also a no no in our system.
> 
> not a good defense for what they did.
Click to expand...


Which is why you’re 1-57 in court with your allegations. 

I can’t recall ever seeing so many people  completely detached from reality as the Trump cult. 

Seriously, where else would a group of people who’ve lost virtually every single time think they are winning?


----------



## Toro

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbfuck, I quoted what is being reported about the Texas lawsuit.
> 
> And while a bunch of states have lined up behind Texas, a bunch of other states have lined up behind the Constitution...
> 
> _WASHINGTON__ — More than two dozen states filed motions with the Supreme Court on Thursday opposing Texas' bid to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden's wins in four battleground states, a long-shot legal move that Pennsylvania blasted as a "seditious abuse of the judicial process."_​
> 
> 
> 
> HA HA. But you have it BACKWARDS. It is Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and many others who are lined up behind the Constitution. That is the crux of the case.  It is the 4 cheater states who are in VIOLATION of the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1), that are the defendants.
> 
> And while you're washing out your mouth with soap, gargle with some strong mouthwash too.
Click to expand...


You are a clueless cultist


----------



## dblack

So, when the SC tells you stupid fuckers to sit down and shut up, what will you do then?


----------



## Faun

dblack said:


> So, when the SC tells you stupid fuckers to sit down and shut up, what will you do then?


Pin their hopes on the next lawsuit.


----------



## eddiew37

I don't remember anyone plotting to overthrow Trump.  I don't remember them spying on Trump.

I remember there being LOTS of contacts between Trump associates and Russian intelligence agents... including meetings where digging up dirt and releasing it was discussed.  I remember 40+ indictments and a number of these conspirators being jailed.  I remember Trump pardoning one after he plead guilty.

Certainly more in jail from that GOOD investigation than any other.

If I were Trump I would have disavowed those individuals and cheered on the investigation for pushing back on Russian interference.

But that's just me.


----------



## BWK

andaronjim said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> Sanity?   Do you believe men with tits are women?
Click to expand...

I believe in intelligent debate. You should too.


----------



## BWK

martybegan said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more adjectives you use in the first few words of a post, the more we know it's nothing more than your delusions and idiocy.
Click to expand...

In other words, you are argument free. No surprises there.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> DemonRat Hater said:
> 
> 
> 
> This country has been at a cold civil war for 4 years. It’s about to go hot.
> 
> Trump tweeted this morning “things are going to escalate dramatically”
> 
> 22 states have joined Texas in its lawsuit that has been brought upon to the Supreme Court. The “New Union” is forming
> 
> With all the claims of fraud, Trump isn’t going to lay over nor are his people They will never accept Joe Biden and will never allow him to step foot in the White House.
> 
> Democrat voters are either overconfident or extremely naive about what is going on. They are laughing at the thought of a civil war. As usual, they aren’t taking things seriously. Meanwhile 90% of guns and ammunition is owned by Conservatives.
> 
> Everyday conservatives are getting more angry and upset that nothing is happening.everyone is on edge. I just don’t see the courts or Supreme Court doing anything about it. The swamp is just too deep. Hell, it goes all the way to the core of the earth and back through China!
> 
> Get ready Liberals (because I know you’re not)
> 
> 
> 
> *"With all the claims of fraud"*
> 
> With all the claims of fraud, of which none have been proven.
> 
> There ^^^ fixed that for ya.
Click to expand...

ROFL!  Biden could sodomize a 5-year-old on CNN and you would claim there's no proof he's a pedophile.


----------



## BWK

Gdjjr said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of a court room? Just curious. Defense lawyers do that- and, it can lead to a corrupt prosecution- do you want people to just roll over and accept that? It appears your bias is evidence you do.
> 
> There is no Law of Innocence to be applied- fyi- however, until a trial proves otherwise (no matter the how) then in the US, our system, allegedly, performs in the blind justice mode- that is not blinded by, btw- a good defense lawyer has to maintain innocence while the burden of proof of guilt lies with the prosecution- again, there is no law of innocence that can be applied- btw, I don't think a civil action lawsuit is a criminal action lawsuit- I could be wrong though, so I'll wait for your bias to prove me guilty-
Click to expand...

The prosecution hasn't made a case yet for voter fraud. As for Paxton, his case isn't civil. Next?


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOLOL  Can you not think for yourself?
> 
> Dumbfuck, they already mailed out 7.7 million *applications*. Everyone receiving one can check the box to automatically receive absentee ballots for future elections. Meaning....
> 
> a) there's no news reporting 7.7 million ballots were mailed unsolicited for the general election; and
> 
> b) ballots mailed out would have been based on 7.7 million ballot *applications* mailed out in the Spring; and
> 
> c) mailing out *7.7 million applications* in the Spring to all registered voters in Michigan was done by computer. So if they were going to mail ballots in the fall, also by computer, there would have been more than 7.7 million registered voters as many people in Michigan registered to vote over the summer; and
> 
> d) this farce is based on a Trump tweet back in May which he himself deleted when it was brought to his attention that he got it wrong...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and
> 
> e) rightards are the biggest fucking idiots on the planet. Your only hope of salvaging this fiasco lies in the hopes that AmericanThinker, who published this, got it wrong and that Texas isn't really suing over this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the ones you call _"biggest fucking idiots"_ know that this is a CONSTITUTIONAL lawsuit/issue (Article 2, Section 1), while you are still babbling about ballot applications.  You still don't know what the hell this whole thing (1st 3 words of the OP title >
> *Texas Files Lawsuit*
> 
> is about, and you're displaying that with flying colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, I quoted what is being reported about the Texas lawsuit.
> 
> And while a bunch of states have lined up behind Texas, a bunch of other states have lined up behind the Constitution...
> 
> _WASHINGTON__ — More than two dozen states filed motions with the Supreme Court on Thursday opposing Texas' bid to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden's wins in four battleground states, a long-shot legal move that Pennsylvania blasted as a "seditious abuse of the judicial process."_​
Click to expand...

When you regurgitate fake news all you prove is that you're a brainwashed minion.


----------



## bripat9643

busybee01 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing illegal about it.
Click to expand...

If the legislature didn't approve it, then it's illegal.


----------



## bripat9643

busybee01 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the ones that were changed, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking moron, you already answered that post of mine with, _"Mail-in voting, for one, asshole."_ But you fail because there was nothing illegal about mail-in voting. So which other rules were illegally changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is illegal if it's not a law in the state, and unless the legislature voted to make it a law, then it's illegal.  The governor or state courts cannot change the law unilaterally.  What part of that don't you get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Untrue. The legislature can delegate that authority to other bodies such as in Michigan where voters can initiate a proposition that can be voted on by voters. The proposition won by a 2-1 margin. That allowed no-excuse mail in balloting in Michigan.
Click to expand...

What part of "the constitution delegates election law to the state legislatures" didn't you understand?


----------



## Indeependent

Faun said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> What it has to do with it is you're lying. That's why I'm posting directly from the BEA's official website while you refuse to.
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the _"official website."_  HA HA HA. Isn't THAT nice.  And exactly what the hell does THAT have to do with anything? Are you now claiming that what I showed (33.1% jump in GDP) is not correct ? If not , then who the hell cares where you posted from, or where I posted from ? Have you been getting enough sleep ?
> 
> Wow, 7:10 PM. I'm off the computer. Got some real life to attend to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, gramps, you're senile -- that graph shows Q2-2018 was 2.7%, not 4.2%.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be *happy*; why are you so *angry*?
> Are you *always* angry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> I'm laughing my ass off at you idiots. If you think laughter is anger, I can't help that.
Click to expand...

What you have been exhibiting here for several years is anger, not laughter.
Your mental illness is convincing you it's laughter.


----------



## bripat9643

Toro said:


> A sane Republican sides with Biden.
> 
> View attachment 427451


Why bother having a Supreme Court at all then?

This guy is an estblishment douchebag who sucks Dim cock.  He's a reporter for Rueters.  The chance of him being a bonafide Republican are indistinguishable from nil.


----------



## bripat9643

colfax_m said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it refers to election laws, it refers only to state election laws. Please quote anywhere it does otherwise. All elections in this country are run by states.
> 
> 
> 
> Article 2, section 1, Clause 4
> 
> Look it up. Tell me what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That one is the biggest fucking moron on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  Your hatred for me only shows that you fear me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you happen to look up that little part of the constitution that you think doesn't exist? And did you happen to refer back to the part of the lawsuit that asks SCOTUS to rewrite the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should I play your little game?  Quote this "election law" that you believe exists in the Constitution.  Otherwise, shut the fuck up.  I'm not interested in playing your little game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did. In fact, it’s in the quote to this very thread.
> 
> article 2, section 1, clause 4
> 
> The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Click to expand...

That doesn't  refer to election law, moron.  It only refers to the date an event will occur.


----------



## Adrenochrome Junkie

Indeependent said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> What it has to do with it is you're lying. That's why I'm posting directly from the BEA's official website while you refuse to.
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the _"official website."_  HA HA HA. Isn't THAT nice.  And exactly what the hell does THAT have to do with anything? Are you now claiming that what I showed (33.1% jump in GDP) is not correct ? If not , then who the hell cares where you posted from, or where I posted from ? Have you been getting enough sleep ?
> 
> Wow, 7:10 PM. I'm off the computer. Got some real life to attend to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, gramps, you're senile -- that graph shows Q2-2018 was 2.7%, not 4.2%.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be *happy*; why are you so *angry*?
> Are you *always* angry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> I'm laughing my ass off at you idiots. If you think laughter is anger, I can't help that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you have been exhibiting here for several years is anger, not laughter.
> Your mental illness is convincing you it's laughter.
Click to expand...




The average DemonRat reminds me of the joker and his useful idiots.  

They’re all batshit crazy, delusional, and have sever mental deficiencies. 

If the Joker were real, he’d have been the DNC nominee


----------



## colfax_m

bripat9643 said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it refers to election laws, it refers only to state election laws. Please quote anywhere it does otherwise. All elections in this country are run by states.
> 
> 
> 
> Article 2, section 1, Clause 4
> 
> Look it up. Tell me what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That one is the biggest fucking moron on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  Your hatred for me only shows that you fear me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you happen to look up that little part of the constitution that you think doesn't exist? And did you happen to refer back to the part of the lawsuit that asks SCOTUS to rewrite the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should I play your little game?  Quote this "election law" that you believe exists in the Constitution.  Otherwise, shut the fuck up.  I'm not interested in playing your little game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did. In fact, it’s in the quote to this very thread.
> 
> article 2, section 1, clause 4
> 
> The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't  refer to election law, moron.  It only refers to the date an event will occur.
Click to expand...

Which event does it refer to?


----------



## Indeependent

DemonRat Hater said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> What it has to do with it is you're lying. That's why I'm posting directly from the BEA's official website while you refuse to.
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the _"official website."_  HA HA HA. Isn't THAT nice.  And exactly what the hell does THAT have to do with anything? Are you now claiming that what I showed (33.1% jump in GDP) is not correct ? If not , then who the hell cares where you posted from, or where I posted from ? Have you been getting enough sleep ?
> 
> Wow, 7:10 PM. I'm off the computer. Got some real life to attend to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, gramps, you're senile -- that graph shows Q2-2018 was 2.7%, not 4.2%.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be *happy*; why are you so *angry*?
> Are you *always* angry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> I'm laughing my ass off at you idiots. If you think laughter is anger, I can't help that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you have been exhibiting here for several years is anger, not laughter.
> Your mental illness is convincing you it's laughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 427545
> The average DemonRat reminds me of the joker and his useful idiots.
> 
> They’re all batshit crazy, delusional, and have sever mental deficiencies.
> 
> If the Joker were real, he’d have been the DNC nominee
Click to expand...

The Joker had a plan; Liberals are off-the-cuff assholes.


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's the only president on record to accomplish that. He's also never had a quarter of GDP growth rech 4%.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  The most recent quarter (3rd quarter of 2020) was *33.1%* (highest in US history).
> 
> View attachment 427495
> 
> There also was a *4.2%* growth (2nd quarter of 2018), which the anti-Trump BEA reduced to a lesser amount.
> 
> Here is the BEA chart showing 4.2%  (2nd quarter of 2018) before they cut it down,  reported by the leftist magazine Mother Jones >>>
> 
> View attachment 427491
> 
> U.S. second-quarter GDP growth raised to 4.2 percent | Reuters
> 
> PS - note the continuous overall sinking of the Obama GDP's, on contrast to the continuous rising after Trump took over.  The infamous "V GRAPH"
> 
> View attachment 427494
Click to expand...


After a horrendous drop. We are seeing the economy slowing again because of Senate Republicans.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Toro said:


> The courts have repeatedly dismissed your arguments.
> 
> You're 1-57 in the courts for a reason.


That reason is massive corruption. Biden vote stealing and creating is a fact. Not a fiction! Corrupt
judiciary rubber stamping Biden friendly decisions.
Think of the Florida Supreme Court circa 2000;


----------



## Lesh

bripat9643 said:


> Why bother having a Supreme Court at all then?


That's exactly how Trump feels. What good is a Supreme Court if you can't use it to over turn an election, right?


----------



## busybee01

Drop Dead Fred said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing unlawful about sending out absentee ballot applications. The courts in Michigan said that state officials acted in a lawful manner. All state laws were followed. Specify which ones were not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit
> 
> 
> Texas claims that the presidential elections as held (and as directed by government officials outside the legislature) in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanthinker.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michigan
> 
> Violations of Election Law:
> 
> The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
> 
> The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.
> 
> The Secretary of State also allowed absentee ballots to be requested online without signature verification.
> 
> Local election officials in Wayne County — containing 322,925 more ballots for Biden than for Trump — opened and processed mail-in ballots without poll-watchers present.
> 
> Local election officials in Wayne County also ignored the strict election law requirements of placing a written statement or stamp on each ballot envelope indicating that the voter signature was in fact checked and verified with the signature on file with the state.
> 
> Evidence of Fraud:
> 
> 174,384 mail-in ballots in Wayne County had no valid registration number, indicating they likely resulted from election workers running the same ballots through the tabulator multiple times.
> 
> 71% of Wayne County Absent Voter Counting Boards were unbalanced, where the number of people who checked in did not match the number of ballots cast.
Click to expand...


Michigan
Again there is no evidence to support your accusations. The SOS did not send out ballots just applications for mail in ballots. Again you are just regurgitating stuff that has been looked at by state and federal courts. The answer has been the same. Trump has lost about 30 cases in a row after winning only one. The total imbalance in Wayne County was around 400 votes total. Other counties had imbalances as well.


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> Drop Dead Fred said:
> 
> 
> 
> The full text of the lawsuit is at
> 
> https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf
> 
> Here's a summary of the lawsuit. If these things are true, then Democrats definitely stole the election.
> 
> A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody needed to see this to know they stole the election. There have viral videos for more than a month, showing Republican poll watchers being denied entrance to voting halls, other Republican poll watchers being kicked out of voting halls, other Republican poll watchers forced to stand 6-30 feet away from the vote counters (where they couldn't see a thing), and others kept outside the voting hall, with large cardboard covers placed over the windows, so the Republican poll watchers couldn't see inside, and do their jobs of watching the vote counts.
> 
> Whole thing was a FARCE, and just these violations alone invalidated the entire election, without even looking at the mountain of other cheating that went on rampantly, all over the country.
Click to expand...


The Trump campaign has long since dropped their claims that pollwatchers were not allowed. You need to catch up on the facts. Protestors screaming at poll workers are not poll watchers.

Your complaints are a FARCE. Even judges appointed by Trump have thrown your asses out of court you lying NAZI.


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.*_
> 
> If that's what Texas' lawsuit is about, they're not just going to have their case thrown out of court -- they're going to be laughed out of court.
> 
> 
> 
> When you don't even know what the Texas lawsuit is about  (as shown by >_ "If that's what Texas' lawsuit is about"_), you shouldn't be in here posting about it.
> 
> I posted what the lawsuit is about (unconstitutional actions outside the legislature) earlier in the thread, as did other posters. Read the thread.
Click to expand...


John Cornyn has already said he doesn't understand it. Texas Rep Chip Roy has also called it ridiculous. No state has a right to interfere in another state's elections.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

busybee01 said:


> The Trump campaign has long since dropped their claims that pollwatchers were not allowed. You need to catch up on the facts. Protestors screaming at poll workers are not poll watchers.
> 
> Your complaints are a FARCE. Even judges appointed by Trump have thrown your asses out of court you lying NAZI.


No one dropped claims that poll watchers were hampered and hindered by Biden monkeys.
Been visiting with your_ Old Grandad_ again?


----------



## busybee01

Cecilie1200 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now we have 17 states joining with Texas.   Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hilbilly states of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a trend. Biden won Georgia because of the suburban vote which voted for a Republican governor just 6 years ago. It will only get worse as rural states lose voters while the suburbs gain voters. The states that went to Trump are at the bottom in education. The red states are hillbillies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Teachers and non-MD Health Care Workers are not quite the most highly educated.
> You Liberals flatter yourselves way too much but you can get away with that because you hang out with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters are the dumbest people on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except for diehard leftist drones like you.
Click to expand...


I know everyone who disagrees is a diehard leftist drone. I suppose Arizona and Georgia are filled with leftist drones. You are so far to the right that Ronald Reagan would be a leftist drone to you.


----------



## Doc7505

danielpalos said:


> Thunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas has no standing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe, if they set the example by reviewing how they did their vote counting.
Click to expand...


~~~~~~
Moreover, perhaps before they begin changing voting rules without legislation they should refer to their state's Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## busybee01

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Trump campaign has long since dropped their claims that pollwatchers were not allowed. You need to catch up on the facts. Protestors screaming at poll workers are not poll watchers.
> 
> Your complaints are a FARCE. Even judges appointed by Trump have thrown your asses out of court you lying NAZI.
> 
> 
> 
> No one dropped claims that poll watchers were hampered and hindered by Biden monkeys.
> Been visiting with your_ Old Grandad_ again?
Click to expand...


"President Donald Trump's campaign has dropped the allegation from its federal lawsuit challenging the results of Pennsylvania's election which claimed that hundreds of thousands of ballots in the key swing state had been illegally counted without Republican poll observers present."

Trump campaign drops claim that GOP poll observers weren't allowed to watch Pennsylvania vote count (msn.com)


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

That's just Pennsylvania. And that's far left Salon doing that reporting.
Bullshit! Say hi to your Old Grandad.


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already did. In fact, it’s in the quote to this very thread.
> 
> article 2, section 1, clause 4
> 
> The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> It might interest you to know that if this whole thing keeps rolling to Jan. 6, then yes it will be the Congress (US House) that will select the electors. But it won't be by popular vote. It is done by STATES, each one having one vote, and that puts Donald Trump in the White House for 4 MORE YEARS, undoubtedly.
Click to expand...


No it is not. It is over once electors vote on Monday,


----------



## Indeependent

busybee01 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Trump campaign has long since dropped their claims that pollwatchers were not allowed. You need to catch up on the facts. Protestors screaming at poll workers are not poll watchers.
> 
> Your complaints are a FARCE. Even judges appointed by Trump have thrown your asses out of court you lying NAZI.
> 
> 
> 
> No one dropped claims that poll watchers were hampered and hindered by Biden monkeys.
> Been visiting with your_ Old Grandad_ again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "President Donald Trump's campaign has dropped the allegation from its federal lawsuit challenging the results of Pennsylvania's election which claimed that hundreds of thousands of ballots in the key swing state had been illegally counted without Republican poll observers present."
> 
> Trump campaign drops claim that GOP poll observers weren't allowed to watch Pennsylvania vote count (msn.com)
Click to expand...

Nov 7...so?


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbfuck, I quoted what is being reported about the Texas lawsuit.
> 
> And while a bunch of states have lined up behind Texas, a bunch of other states have lined up behind the Constitution...
> 
> _WASHINGTON__ — More than two dozen states filed motions with the Supreme Court on Thursday opposing Texas' bid to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden's wins in four battleground states, a long-shot legal move that Pennsylvania blasted as a "seditious abuse of the judicial process."_​
> 
> 
> 
> HA HA. But you have it BACKWARDS. It is Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and many others who are lined up behind the Constitution. That is the crux of the case.  It is the 4 cheater states who are in VIOLATION of the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1), that are the defendants.
> 
> And while you're washing out your mouth with soap, gargle with some strong mouthwash too.
Click to expand...


No it is not. Texas, Alabama and the others are the cheater states.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Indeependent said:


> Nov 7...so?


So it's all bullshit.


----------



## busybee01

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> That's just Pennsylvania. And that's far left Salon doing that reporting.
> Bullshit! Say hi to Old Grandad.



In the other states, judges threw out the claim. Worth noting that he has dropped the claims from all of the filings.


----------



## Indeependent

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nov 7...so?
> 
> 
> 
> So it's all bullshit.
Click to expand...

Liberals should be grateful for the Internet.
Whenever I have discussions with them at someone's home, they usually turn red, start choking, get all bug eyed and walk off within 30 seconds.


----------



## busybee01

bripat9643 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing illegal about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the legislature didn't approve it, then it's illegal.
Click to expand...


It is not. Voters approved it. It does not need to be passed by the legislature. You think the legislature is a king.


----------



## Indeependent

busybee01 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just Pennsylvania. And that's far left Salon doing that reporting.
> Bullshit! Say hi to Old Grandad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the other states, judges threw out the claim. Worth noting that he has dropped the claims from all of the filings.
Click to expand...

Which has what to do with Texas, et al?


----------



## busybee01

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly how Trump feels. What good is a Supreme Court if you can't use it to over turn a *corrupt* election, right?
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree. The Supreme Court is like an umpire, ready to step in when one teams cheats
> and ignores laws and rules.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court is not a umpire when it illegally steals a election.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

busybee01 said:


> In the other states, judges threw out the claim. Worth noting that he has dropped the claims from all of the filings.


Also worth noting that the vote cheating is over now. NO one is doing that sort of work now.
So yeah, no one is claiming observers are blocked, harassed, hassled anymore.
But they were and we have the video to prove it.

Wake up, dip shit!


----------



## Indeependent

busybee01 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly how Trump feels. What good is a Supreme Court if you can't use it to over turn a *corrupt* election, right?
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree. The Supreme Court is like an umpire, ready to step in when one teams cheats
> and ignores laws and rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is not a umpire when it illegally steals a election.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming to be qualified to be on the Supreme Court?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

busybee01 said:


> The Supreme Court is not a umpire when it illegally steals a election.


So, the Supreme Court has illegally stolen an election?

Glug, glug.....drinky drinky.


----------



## Lesh

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is not a umpire when it illegally steals a election.
> 
> 
> 
> So, the Supreme Court has illegally stolen an election?
> 
> Glug, glug.....drinky drinky.
Click to expand...

That's what you folks are hoping for


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Lesh said:


> That's what you folks are hoping for


Yeah...I didn't make that ignorant claim. I actually think the court is going to restore order and 
slap the Biden flying monkeys down.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Dan from squirrels hill blog

*A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit*


A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit

By Robert Madsen

December 10, 2020

Excerpt:

Texas claims that the presidential elections as held (and as directed by government officials outside the legislature) in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing away with security measures.  Further, according to the U.S. Constitution, the legislature (representing the citizens) of each state has absolute authority and responsibility for how presidential electors are chosen; the will of legislature being expressed through state law.

Texas claims that the violations of election law in these states created an environment where ballot fraud was enabled and likely to occur.  The lawsuit lists the violations of law in each of the defendant states and provides evidence of fraud (the number of ballots handled unconstitutionally) in each of the states sufficient to change the outcome of the ballot counts.

Pennsylvania

Facts:

Vote Tally: 3,445,548 for Biden and 3,363,951 for Trump – margin 81,597.

Requests for mail-in ballots 70% Democrats and 25% Republicans.

Mail-in ballots increased from 266,208 in 2016 to over 3,000,000 in 2020.

Violations of Election Law:

The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.

PA supreme court changed existing deadline for receiving mail-in ballots from 8:00 PM on the day of election to 3 days after the election and adopted a presumption that non-postmarked ballots be considered as valid.

Election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties did not follow state law permitting poll-watchers to be present for the opening, counting, and recording of mail-in ballots.

The Secretary of State directed election officials to remove ballots before 7:00 AM on the day of election in order to “cure” defective mail-in ballots.  This was done only in Democrat majority counties.

Election officials did not segregate ballots received after 8:00 PM on election day breaking the promise made to the U.S. Supreme Court thus making it impossible to identify or remove those ballots.

Evidence of Fraud:

LINK for the rest and covers the other three states


----------



## Moonglow

That is yer jist from a media outlet have you researched to find that Pennsylvania did use the process of legislature to okay the changes to the election?


----------



## Moonglow

An AG that is under investigation in Texass for abuse of office and taking kickbacks is suing several states claiming they are violating law...Irony at its best.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Moonglow said:


> That is yer jist from a media outlet have you researched to find that Pennsylvania did use the process of legislature to okay the changes to the election?



Why don't YOU tell us yourself, or are you a typical drive by poster?


----------



## Moonglow

Sunsettommy said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is yer jist from a media outlet have you researched to find that Pennsylvania did use the process of legislature to okay the changes to the election?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't YOU tell us yourself, or are you a typical drive by poster?
Click to expand...

I did just tell you about Pennsylvania and why the Pennsylvania SC rejected the argument that the legislature should have amended the state constitution yet the Penn. SC said it was argued past the statue of limitation had expired.
That is discussing the facts not pejorative projections and contemptable arrogance of your cult of personality.


----------



## ReinyDays

Sunsettommy said:


> Why don't YOU tell us yourself, or are you a typical drive by poster?



Is that a dare? ...

PA has submitted their response to the Texas complaint ... Opposition to Motion ...

PA claims TX has no authority to enforce TX laws in PA elections ... among several other points of law ...


----------



## Doc7505

Doc7505 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas has no standing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe, if they set the example by reviewing how they did their vote counting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ~~~~~~
> Moreover, perhaps before they begin changing voting rules without legislation they should refer to their state's Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...


----------



## colfax_m

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Yeah...I didn't make that ignorant claim. I actually think the court is going to restore order and
> slap the Biden flying monkeys down


I admire the confidence. Even after being rejected literally dozens of times, you still think the next time it’s going to work out for you even though you literally are still making the same arguments.


----------



## candycorn

Sunsettommy said:


> Dan from squirrels hill blog
> 
> *A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit*
> 
> 
> A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit
> 
> By Robert Madsen
> 
> December 10, 2020
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> Texas claims that the presidential elections as held (and as directed by government officials outside the legislature) in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing away with security measures.  Further, according to the U.S. Constitution, the legislature (representing the citizens) of each state has absolute authority and responsibility for how presidential electors are chosen; the will of legislature being expressed through state law.
> 
> Texas claims that the violations of election law in these states created an environment where ballot fraud was enabled and likely to occur.  The lawsuit lists the violations of law in each of the defendant states and provides evidence of fraud (the number of ballots handled unconstitutionally) in each of the states sufficient to change the outcome of the ballot counts.
> 
> Pennsylvania
> 
> Facts:
> 
> Vote Tally: 3,445,548 for Biden and 3,363,951 for Trump – margin 81,597.
> 
> Requests for mail-in ballots 70% Democrats and 25% Republicans.
> 
> Mail-in ballots increased from 266,208 in 2016 to over 3,000,000 in 2020.
> 
> Violations of Election Law:
> 
> The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
> 
> PA supreme court changed existing deadline for receiving mail-in ballots from 8:00 PM on the day of election to 3 days after the election and adopted a presumption that non-postmarked ballots be considered as valid.
> 
> Election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties did not follow state law permitting poll-watchers to be present for the opening, counting, and recording of mail-in ballots.
> 
> The Secretary of State directed election officials to remove ballots before 7:00 AM on the day of election in order to “cure” defective mail-in ballots.  This was done only in Democrat majority counties.
> 
> Election officials did not segregate ballots received after 8:00 PM on election day breaking the promise made to the U.S. Supreme Court thus making it impossible to identify or remove those ballots.
> 
> Evidence of Fraud:
> 
> LINK for the rest and covers the other three states


The Supreme Court said it was Okay:









						U.S. Supreme Court deals blow to Republicans in Pennsylvania, North Carolina vote-by-mail fights
					

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt setbacks to Republicans by allowing extended deadlines for receiving mail-in ballots in next Tuesday's election in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, states pivotal to President Donald Trump's re-election chances.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

‘"Texas's effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated," wrote Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro.
[…]
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel addressed the lawsuit with equally strong language, writing that "the election in Michigan is over. Texas comes as a stranger to this matter and should not be heard here."

"The challenge here is an unprecedented one, without factual foundation or a valid legal basis," Michigan's brief said.

Chris Carr, the attorney general of Georgia, put more emphasis on the federalism implications of Texas' lawsuit in his filing. "Texas presses a generalized grievance that does not involve the sort of direct state-against-state controversy required for original jurisdiction," he wrote.

"And in any case, there is another forum in which parties who (unlike Texas) have standing can challenge Georgia's compliance with its own election laws: Georgia's own courts."

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul similarly cast the lawsuit as an "extraordinary intrusion into Wisconsin's and the other defendant States' elections, a task that the Constitution leaves to each State."’









						Battleground states issue blistering rebukes to Texas' lawsuit to invalidate millions of votes
					

Each of the four battleground states targeted by a Texas lawsuit seeking to overturn President Donald Trump's election defeat issued blistering briefs at the Supreme Court on Thursday, with Pennsylvania officials going so far as to call the effort a "seditious abuse of the judicial process."




					www.cnn.com
				




“Seditious abuse,” indeed.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Sunsettommy said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is yer jist from a media outlet have you researched to find that Pennsylvania did use the process of legislature to okay the changes to the election?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't YOU tell us yourself, or are you a typical drive by poster?
Click to expand...

The Texas lawsuit is devoid of merit, as is the thread premise.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Texas lawsuit is devoid of merit, as is the thread premise.



That's EXACTLY what Xi JinPing was saying today !!!  You related ???


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

And conservatives claim to be ‘advocates’ of states’ rights.


----------



## Indeependent

candycorn said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dan from squirrels hill blog
> 
> *A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit*
> 
> 
> A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit
> 
> By Robert Madsen
> 
> December 10, 2020
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> Texas claims that the presidential elections as held (and as directed by government officials outside the legislature) in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing away with security measures.  Further, according to the U.S. Constitution, the legislature (representing the citizens) of each state has absolute authority and responsibility for how presidential electors are chosen; the will of legislature being expressed through state law.
> 
> Texas claims that the violations of election law in these states created an environment where ballot fraud was enabled and likely to occur.  The lawsuit lists the violations of law in each of the defendant states and provides evidence of fraud (the number of ballots handled unconstitutionally) in each of the states sufficient to change the outcome of the ballot counts.
> 
> Pennsylvania
> 
> Facts:
> 
> Vote Tally: 3,445,548 for Biden and 3,363,951 for Trump – margin 81,597.
> 
> Requests for mail-in ballots 70% Democrats and 25% Republicans.
> 
> Mail-in ballots increased from 266,208 in 2016 to over 3,000,000 in 2020.
> 
> Violations of Election Law:
> 
> The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
> 
> PA supreme court changed existing deadline for receiving mail-in ballots from 8:00 PM on the day of election to 3 days after the election and adopted a presumption that non-postmarked ballots be considered as valid.
> 
> Election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties did not follow state law permitting poll-watchers to be present for the opening, counting, and recording of mail-in ballots.
> 
> The Secretary of State directed election officials to remove ballots before 7:00 AM on the day of election in order to “cure” defective mail-in ballots.  This was done only in Democrat majority counties.
> 
> Election officials did not segregate ballots received after 8:00 PM on election day breaking the promise made to the U.S. Supreme Court thus making it impossible to identify or remove those ballots.
> 
> Evidence of Fraud:
> 
> LINK for the rest and covers the other three states
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court said it was Okay:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Supreme Court deals blow to Republicans in Pennsylvania, North Carolina vote-by-mail fights
> 
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt setbacks to Republicans by allowing extended deadlines for receiving mail-in ballots in next Tuesday's election in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, states pivotal to President Donald Trump's re-election chances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com
Click to expand...

Oct 28


----------



## Moonglow

This is nothing less than a hail Mary last throw before the game is over action... Three more days....


----------



## candycorn

Indeependent said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dan from squirrels hill blog
> 
> *A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit*
> 
> 
> A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit
> 
> By Robert Madsen
> 
> December 10, 2020
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> Texas claims that the presidential elections as held (and as directed by government officials outside the legislature) in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing away with security measures.  Further, according to the U.S. Constitution, the legislature (representing the citizens) of each state has absolute authority and responsibility for how presidential electors are chosen; the will of legislature being expressed through state law.
> 
> Texas claims that the violations of election law in these states created an environment where ballot fraud was enabled and likely to occur.  The lawsuit lists the violations of law in each of the defendant states and provides evidence of fraud (the number of ballots handled unconstitutionally) in each of the states sufficient to change the outcome of the ballot counts.
> 
> Pennsylvania
> 
> Facts:
> 
> Vote Tally: 3,445,548 for Biden and 3,363,951 for Trump – margin 81,597.
> 
> Requests for mail-in ballots 70% Democrats and 25% Republicans.
> 
> Mail-in ballots increased from 266,208 in 2016 to over 3,000,000 in 2020.
> 
> Violations of Election Law:
> 
> The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
> 
> PA supreme court changed existing deadline for receiving mail-in ballots from 8:00 PM on the day of election to 3 days after the election and adopted a presumption that non-postmarked ballots be considered as valid.
> 
> Election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties did not follow state law permitting poll-watchers to be present for the opening, counting, and recording of mail-in ballots.
> 
> The Secretary of State directed election officials to remove ballots before 7:00 AM on the day of election in order to “cure” defective mail-in ballots.  This was done only in Democrat majority counties.
> 
> Election officials did not segregate ballots received after 8:00 PM on election day breaking the promise made to the U.S. Supreme Court thus making it impossible to identify or remove those ballots.
> 
> Evidence of Fraud:
> 
> LINK for the rest and covers the other three states
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court said it was Okay:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Supreme Court deals blow to Republicans in Pennsylvania, North Carolina vote-by-mail fights
> 
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt setbacks to Republicans by allowing extended deadlines for receiving mail-in ballots in next Tuesday's election in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, states pivotal to President Donald Trump's re-election chances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oct 28
Click to expand...

Before the election.


----------



## Moonglow

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And conservatives claim to be ‘advocates’ of states’ rights.


Not if it involves a fat con man and his sweet serenade of a siren...


----------



## candycorn

Moonglow said:


> This is nothing less than a hail Mary last throw before the game is over action... Three more days....


Then we move in to the phase of questioning who has the magic envelopes with the electoral college votes in them.....


----------



## Moonglow

candycorn said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is nothing less than a hail Mary last throw before the game is over action... Three more days....
> 
> 
> 
> Then we move in to the phase of questioning who has the magic envelopes with the electoral college votes in them.....
Click to expand...

That will be the day the Proud Boys hold the EC hostage on it's way to Congress on Capital Hill....


----------



## Hellokitty

Moonglow said:


> That is yer jist from a media outlet have you researched to find that Pennsylvania did use the process of legislature to okay the changes to the election?



What process of the legislature was used to change election laws in Pa.


----------



## bottlecap

The complaint about Republican poll watchers being denied access to votes being counted is in the Texas lawsuit,

On page 16

49.* Pennsylvania’s election law also requires that poll-watchers be granted access to the opening, counting, and recording of absentee ballots: “Watchers shall be permitted to be present when the envelopes containing official absentee ballots and mail-in ballots are opened and when such ballots are counted and recorded.” *25 PA. STAT. § 3146.8(b). Local election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties decided not to follow 25 PA. STAT. § 3146.8(b) for the opening, counting, and recording of absentee and mail-in ballots. 

This is beyond dispute as there was video evidence of obstruction of Republican poll watchers.  It is crooked, illegal, immoral and unlawful.


----------



## Moonglow

Hellokitty said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is yer jist from a media outlet have you researched to find that Pennsylvania did use the process of legislature to okay the changes to the election?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What process of the legislature was used to change election laws in Pa.
Click to expand...

For the mail in ballots because of the pandemic which is the same the majority of other states did.


----------



## Hellokitty

Moonglow said:


> Hellokitty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is yer jist from a media outlet have you researched to find that Pennsylvania did use the process of legislature to okay the changes to the election?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What process of the legislature was used to change election laws in Pa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the mail in ballots because of the pandemic which is the same the majority of other states did.
Click to expand...


I thought it was the state Supreme Court, not the legislatures, that rule on the mail-in ballot stuff?


----------



## Moonglow

Hellokitty said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hellokitty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is yer jist from a media outlet have you researched to find that Pennsylvania did use the process of legislature to okay the changes to the election?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What process of the legislature was used to change election laws in Pa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the mail in ballots because of the pandemic which is the same the majority of other states did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was the state Supreme Court, not the legislatures, that rule on the mail-in ballot stuff?
Click to expand...

They did rule on it and said it was too late to argue the execution of the legislation.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DemonRat Hater said:
> 
> 
> 
> This country has been at a cold civil war for 4 years. It’s about to go hot.
> 
> Trump tweeted this morning “things are going to escalate dramatically”
> 
> 22 states have joined Texas in its lawsuit that has been brought upon to the Supreme Court. The “New Union” is forming
> 
> With all the claims of fraud, Trump isn’t going to lay over nor are his people They will never accept Joe Biden and will never allow him to step foot in the White House.
> 
> Democrat voters are either overconfident or extremely naive about what is going on. They are laughing at the thought of a civil war. As usual, they aren’t taking things seriously. Meanwhile 90% of guns and ammunition is owned by Conservatives.
> 
> Everyday conservatives are getting more angry and upset that nothing is happening.everyone is on edge. I just don’t see the courts or Supreme Court doing anything about it. The swamp is just too deep. Hell, it goes all the way to the core of the earth and back through China!
> 
> Get ready Liberals (because I know you’re not)
> 
> 
> 
> *"With all the claims of fraud"*
> 
> With all the claims of fraud, of which none have been proven.
> 
> There ^^^ fixed that for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  Biden could sodomize a 5-year-old on CNN and you would claim there's no proof he's a pedophile.
Click to expand...

LOL

Is that supposed to make up for your lack of proof of fraud?


----------



## Hellokitty

Moonglow said:


> Hellokitty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hellokitty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is yer jist from a media outlet have you researched to find that Pennsylvania did use the process of legislature to okay the changes to the election?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What process of the legislature was used to change election laws in Pa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the mail in ballots because of the pandemic which is the same the majority of other states did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was the state Supreme Court, not the legislatures, that rule on the mail-in ballot stuff?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did rule on it and said it was too late to argue the execution of the legislation.
Click to expand...


Why was it needed to change the laws on mail-in ballots 2 weeks before the election?


----------



## ReinyDays

Hellokitty said:


> What process of the legislature was used to change election laws in Pa.



A bill that passed in Sept of 2019 allowed universal mail-in balloting ... the lower courts ruled the lawsuits were not timely, over a year after the law came into effect ... the citation is in my link upthread and discussed in the PA response to the Texas lawsuit ...


----------



## edthecynic

Moonglow said:


> An AG that is under investigation in Texass for abuse of office and taking kickbacks is suing several states claiming they are violating law...Irony at its best.


It is Crooked Ken's way of begging Tramp for a pardon!!!


----------



## Lesh

bottlecap said:


> The complaint about Republican poll watchers being denied access to votes being counted is in the Texas lawsuit,
> 
> On page 16
> 
> 49.* Pennsylvania’s election law also requires that poll-watchers be granted access to the opening, counting, and recording of absentee ballots: “Watchers shall be permitted to be present when the envelopes containing official absentee ballots and mail-in ballots are opened and when such ballots are counted and recorded.” *25 PA. STAT. § 3146.8(b). Local election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties decided not to follow 25 PA. STAT. § 3146.8(b) for the opening, counting, and recording of absentee and mail-in ballots.
> 
> This is beyond dispute as there was video evidence of obstruction of Republican poll watchers.  It is crooked, illegal, immoral and unlawful.


In the UNANIMOUS words of the Supreme Court

*DENIED*


----------



## Moonglow

Hellokitty said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hellokitty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hellokitty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is yer jist from a media outlet have you researched to find that Pennsylvania did use the process of legislature to okay the changes to the election?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What process of the legislature was used to change election laws in Pa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the mail in ballots because of the pandemic which is the same the majority of other states did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was the state Supreme Court, not the legislatures, that rule on the mail-in ballot stuff?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did rule on it and said it was too late to argue the execution of the legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why was it needed to change the laws on mail-in ballots 2 weeks before the election?
Click to expand...

No state would change any voting laws or rules two weeks before an election..


----------



## edthecynic

Sunsettommy said:


> Texas claims that the violations of election law in these states created an environment where ballot fraud was enabled and likely to occur.


And is so "invisible"  it can't be seen or proved as if it never happened!!!!!


----------



## OKTexas

Pogo said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.
> 
> And just HOW exactly is Texas "injured" by what the fuck some other state is doing?   Hm?
> 
> The reference Article II Section 1 Clause 2 reads, and we know it well by now:
> 
> >>  Each State shall appoint, *in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct*, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<
> 
> Read it again --- "in such Manner as the Legislature *thereof* may direct".  Not "in such Manner as the AG of Frickin' Texas may direct".
> 
> This clown should be disbarred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So tell the class, where does it say the State SOS can enter into a consent decree and alter what the legislature directed? Dumb fucking commie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe this post comes in English.
> 
> Maybe not.
Click to expand...



Poor commie, did I use too many big words? LMAO

.


----------



## Care4all

It will likely be DENIED, for Trumpet's sake, hopefully without comment.
....because if with comment, it would likely be excoriating!









						Pennsylvania accuses Texas of seeking 'to decimate the electorate' in fiery Supreme Court brief
					

In briefs submitted with the Supreme Court on Thursday, Georgia and Pennsylvania slammed the Texas effort to prevent those two states, along with Michigan and Wisconsin, from casting their electoral votes as a "meritless" effort to "decimate the electorate of the United States."




					www.foxnews.com


----------



## protectionist

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Not one of those links contained any evidence for what you are suggesting, you shameless liar. As anyone can see for themselves. And we all know you never read any of them anyway.


They ALL contained LOTS of evidence for what I said, and you obviously did not read them, or else you're lying.


----------



## protectionist

Care4all said:


> It will likely be DENIED,


Upon what do you base that ?


----------



## protectionist

Faun said:


> *"With all the claims of fraud"*
> 
> With all the claims of fraud, of which none have been proven.
> 
> There ^^^ fixed that for ya.


ALL have been proven, and many times over.


----------



## protectionist

colfax_m said:


> Then explain why Texas isn’t holding itself to the same standards as these “cheater” states?


How isn't it ?


----------



## protectionist

Faun said:


> You mean with a lawsuit based on a Trump tweet that he deleted because he got it wrong? That's you're idea of Constitutional, gramps?


No, it's NOT based on that, Mr information-deprived liberal. It's based on the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1. 

Some people have to be told twice (or is it 5 times now ?)


----------



## protectionist

Faun said:


> No, gramps, you're senile -- that graph shows Q2-2018 was 2.7%, not 4.2%.


I'm not senile, and you must be BLIND. The graph clearly shows Q2-2018 as 4.2% with the bar reaching right above the 4.0. You're looking at the wrong graph (the BEA cooked one) I'm talking about the graph before the cooking >>>


----------



## protectionist

Toro said:


> Which is why you’re 1-57 in court with your allegations.
> 
> I can’t recall ever seeing so many people  completely detached from reality as the Trump cult.
> 
> Seriously, where else would a group of people who’ve lost virtually every single time think they are winning?


Where they haven't had Democrat judges.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOLOL  Can you not think for yourself?
> 
> Dumbfuck, they already mailed out 7.7 million *applications*. Everyone receiving one can check the box to automatically receive absentee ballots for future elections. Meaning....
> 
> a) there's no news reporting 7.7 million ballots were mailed unsolicited for the general election; and
> 
> b) ballots mailed out would have been based on 7.7 million ballot *applications* mailed out in the Spring; and
> 
> c) mailing out *7.7 million applications* in the Spring to all registered voters in Michigan was done by computer. So if they were going to mail ballots in the fall, also by computer, there would have been more than 7.7 million registered voters as many people in Michigan registered to vote over the summer; and
> 
> d) this farce is based on a Trump tweet back in May which he himself deleted when it was brought to his attention that he got it wrong...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and
> 
> e) rightards are the biggest fucking idiots on the planet. Your only hope of salvaging this fiasco lies in the hopes that AmericanThinker, who published this, got it wrong and that Texas isn't really suing over this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the ones you call _"biggest fucking idiots"_ know that this is a CONSTITUTIONAL lawsuit/issue (Article 2, Section 1), while you are still babbling about ballot applications.  You still don't know what the hell this whole thing (1st 3 words of the OP title >
> *Texas Files Lawsuit*
> 
> is about, and you're displaying that with flying colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, I quoted what is being reported about the Texas lawsuit.
> 
> And while a bunch of states have lined up behind Texas, a bunch of other states have lined up behind the Constitution...
> 
> _WASHINGTON__ — More than two dozen states filed motions with the Supreme Court on Thursday opposing Texas' bid to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden's wins in four battleground states, a long-shot legal move that Pennsylvania blasted as a "seditious abuse of the judicial process."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you regurgitate fake news all you prove is that you're a brainwashed minion.
Click to expand...

Your brain is fake news.

‘Cacophony Of Bogus Claims’: Over 25 States And Territories Slam Texas’ Supreme Court Lawsuit To Overturn Election (forbes.com)
Colorado joins 23-state coalition opposing Texas election lawsuit (thedenverchannel.com)


----------



## Faun

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"With all the claims of fraud"*
> 
> With all the claims of fraud, of which none have been proven.
> 
> There ^^^ fixed that for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> ALL have been proven, and many times over.
Click to expand...


Buzz your nurse, gramps. Tell her she needs to double your meds.


----------



## Faun

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean with a lawsuit based on a Trump tweet that he deleted because he got it wrong? That's you're idea of Constitutional, gramps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's NOT based on that, Mr information-deprived liberal. It's based on the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1.
> 
> Some people have to be told twice (or is it 5 times now ?)
Click to expand...

You're fucked in the head, gramps. We're talking about the claim that Michigan mailed out 7.7 million unsolicited ballots. If you think that's based on the Constitution, show where the Constitution mentions 7.7 million unsolicited ballots.....


----------



## Faun

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, gramps, you're senile -- that graph shows Q2-2018 was 2.7%, not 4.2%.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not senile, and you must be BLIND. The graph clearly shows Q2-2018 as 4.2% with the bar reaching right above the 4.0. You're looking at the wrong graph (the BEA cooked one) I'm talking about the graph before the cooking >>>
> 
> View attachment 427621
Click to expand...

LOL

Poor, senile gramps ... YOU posted this chart before which shows GDP for Q2-2018 was 2.7%, not 4.2%. Exactly how crazy are you?


----------



## Care4all

protectionist said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will likely be DENIED,
> 
> 
> 
> Upon what do you base that ?
Click to expand...

They have no standing.

Their accusations have been litigated already...and the rulings shot their accusations down already.

They waited way too long,

And precedent was set a long long time ago, with the executive and judicial involvement in elections without going through the legislatures.... in all states, including Texas itself.

Also, no state can tell another state how to run their elections and demand all their citizen's votes should be discarded.  We are a democratic Republic...we the people, choose our leaders.... our leaders, do not get to choose the voters.

Plus, every election...some state, could choose to sue another State for simply partisan purpose, as this one is...and THAT is NOT how we choose our leaders in a democracy, we the voter, does the choosing, NOT the courts.   Part of a great democracy, is the peaceful transfer of power, between oppositions.


----------



## protectionist

Care4all said:


> It will likely be DENIED, for Trumpet's sake, hopefully without comment.
> ....because if with comment, it would likely be excoriating!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennsylvania accuses Texas of seeking 'to decimate the electorate' in fiery Supreme Court brief
> 
> 
> In briefs submitted with the Supreme Court on Thursday, Georgia and Pennsylvania slammed the Texas effort to prevent those two states, along with Michigan and Wisconsin, from casting their electoral votes as a "meritless" effort to "decimate the electorate of the United States."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com


----------



## protectionist

Care4all said:


> They have no standing.
> 
> Their accusations have been litigated already...and the rulings shot their accusations down already.
> 
> They waited way too long,
> 
> And precedent was set a long long time ago, with the executive and judicial involvement in elections without going through the legislatures.... in all states, including Texas itself.
> 
> Also, no state can tell another state how to run their elections and demand all their citizen's votes should be discarded.  We are a democratic Republic...we the people, choose our leaders.... our leaders, do not get to choose the voters.
> 
> Plus, every election...some state, could choose to sue another State for simply partisan purpose, as this one is...and THAT is NOT how we choose our leaders in a democracy, we the voter, does the choosing, NOT the courts.   Part of a great democracy, is the peaceful transfer of power, between oppositions.


 They have the* US Constitution as standing*. the best standing you can get, and highly unlikely for the SCOTUS to go against it.

The only case I know of _"executive and judicial involvement in elections without going through the legislatures"_ (a clear Violation of US Constitution Article 2, Section 1) is Pennsylvania's Act 77, which is a sitting duck for the SCOTUS to knock it down like a bunch of bowling pins.

But we will see in the next few days.


----------



## protectionist

Faun said:


> Poor, senile gramps ... YOU posted this chart before which shows GDP for Q2-2018 was 2.7%, not 4.2%. Exactly how crazy are you?


So what ? That was posted for the 33.1% increase, and big deal if it had the phony, cooked 2.7 number in it. I know that., I've already explained that. No harm done. You saw the explanation, Don't play dumb. . Ho hum.


----------



## protectionist

Faun said:


> You're fucked in the head, gramps. We're talking about the claim that Michigan mailed out 7.7 million unsolicited ballots. If you think that's based on the Constitution, show where the Constitution mentions 7.7 million unsolicited ballots.....


HA HA. Oh that's what you're talking about ? Well, I'm talking about the TOPIC of the thread, which is in accordance with the TITLE of the thread, which is >> 
*Texas Files Lawsuit at SCOTUS Against GA, PA, MI, and WI*
And that lawsuit is* about the US CONSTITUTION, Article 2 Section 1*, (I've lost count how many times I've said this now)  Sheeesh!


----------



## bripat9643

busybee01 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's the only president on record to accomplish that. He's also never had a quarter of GDP growth rech 4%.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  The most recent quarter (3rd quarter of 2020) was *33.1%* (highest in US history).
> 
> View attachment 427495
> 
> There also was a *4.2%* growth (2nd quarter of 2018), which the anti-Trump BEA reduced to a lesser amount.
> 
> Here is the BEA chart showing 4.2%  (2nd quarter of 2018) before they cut it down,  reported by the leftist magazine Mother Jones >>>
> 
> View attachment 427491
> 
> U.S. second-quarter GDP growth raised to 4.2 percent | Reuters
> 
> PS - note the continuous overall sinking of the Obama GDP's, on contrast to the continuous rising after Trump took over.  The infamous "V GRAPH"
> 
> View attachment 427494
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After a horrendous drop. We are seeing the economy slowing again because of Senate Republicans.
Click to expand...

ROFL!    Tell us, you fucking moron, how are Senate Republicans responsible?


----------



## bripat9643

busybee01 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now we have 17 states joining with Texas.   Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hilbilly states of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a trend. Biden won Georgia because of the suburban vote which voted for a Republican governor just 6 years ago. It will only get worse as rural states lose voters while the suburbs gain voters. The states that went to Trump are at the bottom in education. The red states are hillbillies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Teachers and non-MD Health Care Workers are not quite the most highly educated.
> You Liberals flatter yourselves way too much but you can get away with that because you hang out with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters are the dumbest people on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except for diehard leftist drones like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know everyone who disagrees is a diehard leftist drone. I suppose Arizona and Georgia are filled with leftist drones. You are so far to the right that Ronald Reagan would be a leftist drone to you.
Click to expand...

No, but you are definitely a leftwing drone, shit for brains.


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother having a Supreme Court at all then?
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly how Trump feels. What good is a Supreme Court if you can't use it to over turn an election, right?
Click to expand...

Trump isn't the one who believes the SC hould nevr intervien in state policies or decisions.  Unlike you, he supports Plessy v. Fergusen.


----------



## bripat9643

busybee01 said:


> Drop Dead Fred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing unlawful about sending out absentee ballot applications. The courts in Michigan said that state officials acted in a lawful manner. All state laws were followed. Specify which ones were not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit
> 
> 
> Texas claims that the presidential elections as held (and as directed by government officials outside the legislature) in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanthinker.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michigan
> 
> Violations of Election Law:
> 
> The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
> 
> The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.
> 
> The Secretary of State also allowed absentee ballots to be requested online without signature verification.
> 
> Local election officials in Wayne County — containing 322,925 more ballots for Biden than for Trump — opened and processed mail-in ballots without poll-watchers present.
> 
> Local election officials in Wayne County also ignored the strict election law requirements of placing a written statement or stamp on each ballot envelope indicating that the voter signature was in fact checked and verified with the signature on file with the state.
> 
> Evidence of Fraud:
> 
> 174,384 mail-in ballots in Wayne County had no valid registration number, indicating they likely resulted from election workers running the same ballots through the tabulator multiple times.
> 
> 71% of Wayne County Absent Voter Counting Boards were unbalanced, where the number of people who checked in did not match the number of ballots cast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Michigan
> Again there is no evidence to support your accusations. The SOS did not send out ballots just applications for mail in ballots. Again you are just regurgitating stuff that has been looked at by state and federal courts. The answer has been the same. Trump has lost about 30 cases in a row after winning only one. The total imbalance in Wayne County was around 400 votes total. Other counties had imbalances as well.
Click to expand...


----------



## bripat9643

busybee01 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.*_
> 
> If that's what Texas' lawsuit is about, they're not just going to have their case thrown out of court -- they're going to be laughed out of court.
> 
> 
> 
> When you don't even know what the Texas lawsuit is about  (as shown by >_ "If that's what Texas' lawsuit is about"_), you shouldn't be in here posting about it.
> 
> I posted what the lawsuit is about (unconstitutional actions outside the legislature) earlier in the thread, as did other posters. Read the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John Cornyn has already said he doesn't understand it. Texas Rep Chip Roy has also called it ridiculous. No state has a right to interfere in another state's elections.
Click to expand...

John Cornyn has always been a RINO.  The SC has the authority to interfere in any corrupt state election.


----------



## bripat9643

busybee01 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing illegal about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the legislature didn't approve it, then it's illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not. Voters approved it. It does not need to be passed by the legislature. You think the legislature is a king.
Click to expand...

The Constitution says it needs to be passed by the legislature, moron.  You're arguing with the Constitution.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DemonRat Hater said:
> 
> 
> 
> This country has been at a cold civil war for 4 years. It’s about to go hot.
> 
> Trump tweeted this morning “things are going to escalate dramatically”
> 
> 22 states have joined Texas in its lawsuit that has been brought upon to the Supreme Court. The “New Union” is forming
> 
> With all the claims of fraud, Trump isn’t going to lay over nor are his people They will never accept Joe Biden and will never allow him to step foot in the White House.
> 
> Democrat voters are either overconfident or extremely naive about what is going on. They are laughing at the thought of a civil war. As usual, they aren’t taking things seriously. Meanwhile 90% of guns and ammunition is owned by Conservatives.
> 
> Everyday conservatives are getting more angry and upset that nothing is happening.everyone is on edge. I just don’t see the courts or Supreme Court doing anything about it. The swamp is just too deep. Hell, it goes all the way to the core of the earth and back through China!
> 
> Get ready Liberals (because I know you’re not)
> 
> 
> 
> *"With all the claims of fraud"*
> 
> With all the claims of fraud, of which none have been proven.
> 
> There ^^^ fixed that for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  Biden could sodomize a 5-year-old on CNN and you would claim there's no proof he's a pedophile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Is that supposed to make up for your lack of proof of fraud?
Click to expand...


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOLOL  Can you not think for yourself?
> 
> Dumbfuck, they already mailed out 7.7 million *applications*. Everyone receiving one can check the box to automatically receive absentee ballots for future elections. Meaning....
> 
> a) there's no news reporting 7.7 million ballots were mailed unsolicited for the general election; and
> 
> b) ballots mailed out would have been based on 7.7 million ballot *applications* mailed out in the Spring; and
> 
> c) mailing out *7.7 million applications* in the Spring to all registered voters in Michigan was done by computer. So if they were going to mail ballots in the fall, also by computer, there would have been more than 7.7 million registered voters as many people in Michigan registered to vote over the summer; and
> 
> d) this farce is based on a Trump tweet back in May which he himself deleted when it was brought to his attention that he got it wrong...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and
> 
> e) rightards are the biggest fucking idiots on the planet. Your only hope of salvaging this fiasco lies in the hopes that AmericanThinker, who published this, got it wrong and that Texas isn't really suing over this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the ones you call _"biggest fucking idiots"_ know that this is a CONSTITUTIONAL lawsuit/issue (Article 2, Section 1), while you are still babbling about ballot applications.  You still don't know what the hell this whole thing (1st 3 words of the OP title >
> *Texas Files Lawsuit*
> 
> is about, and you're displaying that with flying colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, I quoted what is being reported about the Texas lawsuit.
> 
> And while a bunch of states have lined up behind Texas, a bunch of other states have lined up behind the Constitution...
> 
> _WASHINGTON__ — More than two dozen states filed motions with the Supreme Court on Thursday opposing Texas' bid to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden's wins in four battleground states, a long-shot legal move that Pennsylvania blasted as a "seditious abuse of the judicial process."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you regurgitate fake news all you prove is that you're a brainwashed minion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your brain is fake news.
> 
> ‘Cacophony Of Bogus Claims’: Over 25 States And Territories Slam Texas’ Supreme Court Lawsuit To Overturn Election (forbes.com)
> Colorado joins 23-state coalition opposing Texas election lawsuit (thedenverchannel.com)
Click to expand...

You use fake news to claim I post fake news?


----------



## j-mac

Biff_Poindexter said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course - Texas has every right to change election laws in all 57 states because, you know ... TEXAS!
> Good lord, when will Republicans stop embarrassing themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will make them pay for it?
> 
> Their voters?? Nope...
> 
> They are embarrassing themselves for their voters....
> 
> and when this is said and done, I guarantee you that these folks will get pissed if you ever remind them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you would prefer the people nationwide to pay for those States' "right" to defraud the the rest of the rest the United States. Voting fraud affects *all* Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allegations of fraud with no evidence shouldn't affect any Americans....
> 
> We are weeks now of the allegations of fraud... Where is the evidence... Evidence that will stand up in court...
> 
> Where is it?
> 
> No messages of 'it is coming' or 'it is everywhere'... Accusing people of a crime and having no evidence is a crime in itself...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are as sick of this as I am and the judges are. That idiot AG in Texas now claims 80 million fraudulent votes with no evidence. They pull this crap out of their ass and expect people to enjoy the scent. It's beyond ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sweety-------------Texas had their better IT guys inspect the Dominion system before the election throughly and reject allowing it in TEXAS because they found that the system was basically meant to create FRAUD----------
> 
> TEXAS IT guys understand the system and how it was used to CHEAT.............
> 
> Even my lib brother who happens to be the director of computer it department for one of the colleges is  saying Biden is fucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If those IT guys already inspected the software, it should be easy to present evidence of how votes were stolen. Just saying you think it was possible isn't enough. You gotta show evidence that it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More to ignore right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you so sure that Clinton really won re-election in 96?
> 
> How are you confident that Bush won re-election in 2004??
> 
> 
> How do we know that Sean Spicer really didn't win Dancing With The Stars??
> 
> View attachment 427311
Click to expand...


Because we didn’t have the shady shit y’all tried this time.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee




----------



## Faun

Care4all said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will likely be DENIED,
> 
> 
> 
> Upon what do you base that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have no standing.
> 
> Their accusations have been litigated already...and the rulings shot their accusations down already.
> 
> They waited way too long,
> 
> And precedent was set a long long time ago, with the executive and judicial involvement in elections without going through the legislatures.... in all states, including Texas itself.
> 
> Also, no state can tell another state how to run their elections and demand all their citizen's votes should be discarded.  We are a democratic Republic...we the people, choose our leaders.... our leaders, do not get to choose the voters.
> 
> Plus, every election...some state, could choose to sue another State for simply partisan purpose, as this one is...and THAT is NOT how we choose our leaders in a democracy, we the voter, does the choosing, NOT the courts.   Part of a great democracy, is the peaceful transfer of power, between oppositions.
Click to expand...

And at least one of the charges stems from a Trump tweet that was based on fake news...


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DemonRat Hater said:
> 
> 
> 
> This country has been at a cold civil war for 4 years. It’s about to go hot.
> 
> Trump tweeted this morning “things are going to escalate dramatically”
> 
> 22 states have joined Texas in its lawsuit that has been brought upon to the Supreme Court. The “New Union” is forming
> 
> With all the claims of fraud, Trump isn’t going to lay over nor are his people They will never accept Joe Biden and will never allow him to step foot in the White House.
> 
> Democrat voters are either overconfident or extremely naive about what is going on. They are laughing at the thought of a civil war. As usual, they aren’t taking things seriously. Meanwhile 90% of guns and ammunition is owned by Conservatives.
> 
> Everyday conservatives are getting more angry and upset that nothing is happening.everyone is on edge. I just don’t see the courts or Supreme Court doing anything about it. The swamp is just too deep. Hell, it goes all the way to the core of the earth and back through China!
> 
> Get ready Liberals (because I know you’re not)
> 
> 
> 
> *"With all the claims of fraud"*
> 
> With all the claims of fraud, of which none have been proven.
> 
> There ^^^ fixed that for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  Biden could sodomize a 5-year-old on CNN and you would claim there's no proof he's a pedophile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Is that supposed to make up for your lack of proof of fraud?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

LOL

Fucking moron, is that supposed to make your imaginary evidence, real??


----------



## Faun

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor, senile gramps ... YOU posted this chart before which shows GDP for Q2-2018 was 2.7%, not 4.2%. Exactly how crazy are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what ? That was posted for the 33.1% increase, and big deal if it had the phony, cooked 2.7 number in it. I know that., I've already explained that. No harm done. You saw the explanation, Don't play dumb. . Ho hum.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

Gramps, who cares what your reason for posting it was? It still shows Q2-2018 was 2.7%, not 4.2%, as you lied about. And YOU posted that.


----------



## Faun

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're fucked in the head, gramps. We're talking about the claim that Michigan mailed out 7.7 million unsolicited ballots. If you think that's based on the Constitution, show where the Constitution mentions 7.7 million unsolicited ballots.....
> 
> 
> 
> HA HA. Oh that's what you're talking about ? Well, I'm talking about the TOPIC of the thread, which is in accordance with the TITLE of the thread, which is >>
> *Texas Files Lawsuit at SCOTUS Against GA, PA, MI, and WI*
> And that lawsuit is* about the US CONSTITUTION, Article 2 Section 1*, (I've lost count how many times I've said this now)  Sheeesh!
Click to expand...

Poor, senile gramps, that's what I'm talking about too.


----------



## martybegan

BWK said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more adjectives you use in the first few words of a post, the more we know it's nothing more than your delusions and idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you are argument free. No surprises there.
Click to expand...


No, just pointing out as usual that your post has no point except to show what a mouth breathing gutter wench you are.


----------



## citygator




----------



## citygator




----------



## citygator




----------



## Lesh

bripat9643 said:


> Trump isn't the one who believes the SC hould nevr intervien in state policies or decisions. Unlike you, he supports Plessy v. Fergusen.


If memory serves...Plessey v Fergusen was a SCOTUS decision upholding segregation

Oh...


----------



## Toro

Just to show you how much contempt Trump's legal clown car has for their own rube supporters, Lin Wood, one of the Krappen lawyers, attempted to attach something to the retarded Texas lawsuit - not sure what exactly - and spelled _his own name_ incorrectly rofl


----------



## meaner gene

bripat9643 said:


> Trump isn't the one who believes the SC hould nevr intervien in state policies or decisions. Unlike you, he supports Plessy v. Fergusen.





Lesh said:


> If memory serves...Plessey v Fergusen was a SCOTUS decision upholding segregation
> 
> Oh...


Bingo !!!!


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which rules were changed illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing illegal about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the legislature didn't approve it, then it's illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not. Voters approved it. It does not need to be passed by the legislature. You think the legislature is a king.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution says it needs to be passed by the legislature, moron.  You're arguing with the Constitution.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't say it needs to be passed by the legislature, ya fucking moron. It says...

_The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;_​
Which means a state legislature can choose to let the "manner" of holding an election up to the voters. As the Constitution reads, it's up to the states' legislature.


----------



## Toro

bripat9643 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother having a Supreme Court at all then?
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly how Trump feels. What good is a Supreme Court if you can't use it to over turn an election, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump isn't the one who believes the SC hould nevr intervien in state policies or decisions.  Unlike you, he supports Plessy v. Fergusen.
Click to expand...


rofl briptard


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOLOL  Can you not think for yourself?
> 
> Dumbfuck, they already mailed out 7.7 million *applications*. Everyone receiving one can check the box to automatically receive absentee ballots for future elections. Meaning....
> 
> a) there's no news reporting 7.7 million ballots were mailed unsolicited for the general election; and
> 
> b) ballots mailed out would have been based on 7.7 million ballot *applications* mailed out in the Spring; and
> 
> c) mailing out *7.7 million applications* in the Spring to all registered voters in Michigan was done by computer. So if they were going to mail ballots in the fall, also by computer, there would have been more than 7.7 million registered voters as many people in Michigan registered to vote over the summer; and
> 
> d) this farce is based on a Trump tweet back in May which he himself deleted when it was brought to his attention that he got it wrong...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and
> 
> e) rightards are the biggest fucking idiots on the planet. Your only hope of salvaging this fiasco lies in the hopes that AmericanThinker, who published this, got it wrong and that Texas isn't really suing over this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the ones you call _"biggest fucking idiots"_ know that this is a CONSTITUTIONAL lawsuit/issue (Article 2, Section 1), while you are still babbling about ballot applications.  You still don't know what the hell this whole thing (1st 3 words of the OP title >
> *Texas Files Lawsuit*
> 
> is about, and you're displaying that with flying colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, I quoted what is being reported about the Texas lawsuit.
> 
> And while a bunch of states have lined up behind Texas, a bunch of other states have lined up behind the Constitution...
> 
> _WASHINGTON__ — More than two dozen states filed motions with the Supreme Court on Thursday opposing Texas' bid to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden's wins in four battleground states, a long-shot legal move that Pennsylvania blasted as a "seditious abuse of the judicial process."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you regurgitate fake news all you prove is that you're a brainwashed minion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your brain is fake news.
> 
> ‘Cacophony Of Bogus Claims’: Over 25 States And Territories Slam Texas’ Supreme Court Lawsuit To Overturn Election (forbes.com)
> Colorado joins 23-state coalition opposing Texas election lawsuit (thedenverchannel.com)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use fake news to claim I post fake news?
Click to expand...

Not my problem you're incapable of recognizing real news. I even linked a news source you yourself have referenced as a source. Now, because you don't like what it says, you idiotically call *that same source*, "fake news." 

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???


----------



## meaner gene

bripat9643 said:


> The Constitution says it needs to be passed by the legislature, moron.  You're arguing with the Constitution.





Faun said:


> No, it doesn't say it needs to be passed by the legislature, ya fucking moron. It says...
> 
> _The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;_​
> Which means a state legislature can choose to let the "manner" of holding an election up to the voters. As the Constitution reads, it's up to the states' legislature.








						Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
					

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars



					constitutioncenter.org
				




The Court also has held that *a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials.*


----------



## BWK

FBI serves subpoena in corruption probe of leader of Trump SCOTUS election ploy: report  The FBI is investigating this piece of shit while the Right is trying to prop up their ridiculous law suits.  The absurdity of Republicans has reached its peak.


----------



## Faun

meaner gene said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution says it needs to be passed by the legislature, moron.  You're arguing with the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't say it needs to be passed by the legislature, ya fucking moron. It says...
> 
> _The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;_​
> Which means a state legislature can choose to let the "manner" of holding an election up to the voters. As the Constitution reads, it's up to the states' legislature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
> 
> 
> Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars
> 
> 
> 
> constitutioncenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Court also has held that *a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials.*
Click to expand...

Fingerboi's a fucking moron. If he says something, you know it's wrong if for no other reason than because he says it.


----------



## meaner gene

Faun said:


> Fingerboi's a fucking moron. If he says something, you know it's wrong if for no other reason than because he says it.



There are two kinds of posters.  Those who spew what they claim as facts, and those who cite their source.

Most claims made by bripat are the former.  Which makes him such a laughing stock.


----------



## meaner gene

bripat9643 said:


> yes, I did lie about that.  I said it simply to trigger morons like you, and it worked.



He even confesses to it.


----------



## BlindBoo

The so called law and order party seek to disenfranchised millions of voters beyond the established due process of the State and Federal courts who have jurisdiction.  It is a bid for one party rule.  Well on the road to Fascism.


----------



## Hellokitty

Moonglow said:


> Hellokitty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hellokitty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hellokitty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is yer jist from a media outlet have you researched to find that Pennsylvania did use the process of legislature to okay the changes to the election?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What process of the legislature was used to change election laws in Pa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the mail in ballots because of the pandemic which is the same the majority of other states did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was the state Supreme Court, not the legislatures, that rule on the mail-in ballot stuff?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did rule on it and said it was too late to argue the execution of the legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why was it needed to change the laws on mail-in ballots 2 weeks before the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No state would change any voting laws or rules two weeks before an election..
Click to expand...


That is exactly what happened in Pennsylvania with the state SC ruling on mail-in ballot signatures.


----------



## Moonglow

Hellokitty said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hellokitty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hellokitty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hellokitty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is yer jist from a media outlet have you researched to find that Pennsylvania did use the process of legislature to okay the changes to the election?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What process of the legislature was used to change election laws in Pa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the mail in ballots because of the pandemic which is the same the majority of other states did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was the state Supreme Court, not the legislatures, that rule on the mail-in ballot stuff?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did rule on it and said it was too late to argue the execution of the legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why was it needed to change the laws on mail-in ballots 2 weeks before the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No state would change any voting laws or rules two weeks before an election..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly what happened in Pennsylvania with the state SC ruling on mail-in ballot signatures.
Click to expand...

So you do actually know about this...


----------



## Hellokitty

Moonglow said:


> Hellokitty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hellokitty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hellokitty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hellokitty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is yer jist from a media outlet have you researched to find that Pennsylvania did use the process of legislature to okay the changes to the election?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What process of the legislature was used to change election laws in Pa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the mail in ballots because of the pandemic which is the same the majority of other states did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was the state Supreme Court, not the legislatures, that rule on the mail-in ballot stuff?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did rule on it and said it was too late to argue the execution of the legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why was it needed to change the laws on mail-in ballots 2 weeks before the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No state would change any voting laws or rules two weeks before an election..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly what happened in Pennsylvania with the state SC ruling on mail-in ballot signatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you do actually know about this...
Click to expand...


I do, and your responses show you either don't or are intentional trying to mislead people.


----------



## Toro

Texas Sen. John Cornyn (R) questioned why the state's attorney general, Ken Paxton (R), believed his state's officials should have a say over how other states conduct their elections.​​Speaking with CNN's Manu Raju, Cornyn was referring to Paxton's claim that the results of voting in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia were "tainted" due to changes to election processes in those states.​​"You know, it's very unusual because when a state sues a state, the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction, so you don't have to go through the ordinary procedure. I read just the summary of it, and I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it," Cornyn told CNN.​​"Number one, why would a state, even such a great state as Texas, have a say-so on how other states administer their elections?” the senator continued. “We have a diffused and dispersed system, and even though we might not like it, they may think it's unfair those are decided at the state and local level and not at the national level. So it's an interesting theory, but I'm not convinced."​​“You know, it's very unusual because when a state sues a state, the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction, so you don't have to go through the ordinary procedure. I read just the summary of it, and I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it.”​








						GOP Texas senator questions ‘legal theory’ behind Trump’s lawsuit to challenge state’s election results
					

Texas Sen. John Cornyn (R) questioned why the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton (R), believed his state’s officials should have a say over how other states conduct their el…




					thehill.com


----------



## Toro




----------



## Toro




----------



## Toro




----------



## Sunsettommy

edthecynic said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas claims that the violations of election law in these states created an environment where ballot fraud was enabled and likely to occur.
> 
> 
> 
> And is so "invisible"  it can't be seen or proved as if it never happened!!!!!
Click to expand...


I didn't make the claims, Texas did you jack ass!

I generally try to post the SCOTUS information to the forum, I say little about it personally since I don't even pretend to be a sidewalk lawyer or judge.


----------



## Mac-7

Moonglow said:


> An AG that is under investigation in Texass for abuse of office and taking kickbacks is suing several states claiming they are violating law...Irony at its best.


I think its 18 or 19 states suing the denocrat cheaters


----------



## ReinyDays

Toro said:


> View attachment 427734





Toro said:


> View attachment 427736





Toro said:


> View attachment 427741



These States have only applied to be allowed to file amicus briefs ... SCOTUS hasn't ruled on their petition yet ... I expect not, the Texas complaint will be dismissed out-of-hand ... the tortuous logic they presented in their complaint doesn't even come close to the text of the Constitution ... the laws PA used this election were put in place 15 months ago ...


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump isn't the one who believes the SC hould nevr intervien in state policies or decisions. Unlike you, he supports Plessy v. Fergusen.
> 
> 
> 
> If memory serves...Plessey v Fergusen was a SCOTUS decision upholding segregation
> 
> Oh...
Click to expand...

True.  I'm thinking of Brown v Board of Education.


----------



## bripat9643

meaner gene said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution says it needs to be passed by the legislature, moron.  You're arguing with the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't say it needs to be passed by the legislature, ya fucking moron. It says...
> 
> _The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;_​
> Which means a state legislature can choose to let the "manner" of holding an election up to the voters. As the Constitution reads, it's up to the states' legislature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
> 
> 
> Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars
> 
> 
> 
> constitutioncenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Court also has held that *a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials.*
Click to expand...

Really?  Post the case


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Lesh said:


> That's what you folks are hoping for


A return to law and order, you mean.


----------



## meaner gene

bripat9643 said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Court also has held that *a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials.*
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Post the case
Click to expand...

Here we go again.  And will my posting the case citation cause you to stop posting bullshit?

If all you'll do is shake it off like the last dozen citations i've given you, what's the point?


----------



## Care4all

Moonglow said:


> That is yer jist from a media outlet have you researched to find that Pennsylvania did use the process of legislature to okay the changes to the election?


It's not even a media outlet!  It's setup and format, lets anyone that buys a site from them, create their own fake media outlet.... all are trolls....Russian, Chinese, Americans, Nigerians, you name it....rift raft.


----------



## Care4all

Hellokitty said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hellokitty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is yer jist from a media outlet have you researched to find that Pennsylvania did use the process of legislature to okay the changes to the election?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What process of the legislature was used to change election laws in Pa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the mail in ballots because of the pandemic which is the same the majority of other states did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was the state Supreme Court, not the legislatures, that rule on the mail-in ballot stuff?
Click to expand...

It was rulings on the lawsuits against the State or Secretary of State, brought by the legislature and friendly groups for the legislature, claiming the moves were not legal...is my understanding.

The State supreme court ruled they were not illegal...


----------



## BlindBoo

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you folks are hoping for
> 
> 
> 
> A return to law and order, you mean.
Click to expand...



But first you must ignore the established law and order of the State and Federal Courts who rule by precedent.  Also you must ignore the established State and Federal election laws to disallow the certified votes and substitute and alternate slate of electors that favor the Loser of the popular vote in all 4 states as well as the entire nation.

The goal is one party rule.


----------



## danielpalos

Doc7505 said:


> Doc7505 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas has no standing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe, if they set the example by reviewing how they did their vote counting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ~~~~~~
> Moreover, perhaps before they begin changing voting rules without legislation they should refer to their state's Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Texas is welcome to go first, for the metadata and those metrics for the Union as a fixable to fixed Standard.


----------



## bripat9643

meaner gene said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Court also has held that *a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials.*
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Post the case
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here we go again.  And will my posting the case citation cause you to stop posting bullshit?
> 
> If all you'll do is shake it off like the last dozen citations i've given you, what's the point?
Click to expand...

You mean I'm not allowed to dispute it if it doesn't say what you claim?

Go fuck yourself.  Your claim will stand as unsupported.


----------



## Sunsettommy

The state of Texas has made a response, from SCOTUS website:



Dec 11 2020Reply of State of Texas submitted.​Main Document


LINK


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

BlindBoo said:


> But first you must ignore the established law and order of the State and Federal Courts who rule by precedent. Also you must ignore the established State and Federal election laws to disallow the certified votes and substitute and alternate slate of electors that favor the Loser of the popular vote in all 4 states as well as the entire nation.
> 
> The goal is one party rule.


One party rule IS the goal...for the democrats. That's why they are already planning to pack the courts, end filibusters, add more states to gain more senators and seats in Congress, etc.
AOC has already said her goal, and that of her followers, is to rule without being forced to deal with the republican party.

She's a *demagogue*. Look the word up. She's not  where she wants to be...yet! But she and her party is working on it. Stealing the presidential election in front of the eyes of the nation is a good first step.

We aren't bound by precedent and your lies when an election like this is stolen. Hypocritical fuckers
want to cling to law and order appeals after stealing the presidency.
The Supreme Court is now in play.


----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> Here we go again.  And will my posting the case citation cause you to stop posting bullshit?
> 
> If all you'll do is shake it off like the last dozen citations i've given you, what's the point?





bripat9643 said:


> You mean I'm not allowed to dispute it if it doesn't say what you claim?
> 
> Go fuck yourself.  Your claim will stand as unsupported.


Here we go again.  That's the same thing you did with the previous citation I posted that showed you were completely wrong.

First you said since I hadn't posted a citation right away, that one did not exist.  Then when I posted it, you said it wasn't what I claimed.  And when I quoted the relevant section, you just ran away.

Yeah i'm going to waste that much time again.


----------



## bripat9643

meaner gene said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fingerboi's a fucking moron. If he says something, you know it's wrong if for no other reason than because he says it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two kinds of posters.  Those who spew what they claim as facts, and those who cite their source.
> 
> Most claims made by bripat are the former.  Which makes him such a laughing stock.
Click to expand...

When did you cite your source on the Supreme Court saying "a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials?"


----------



## j-mac

Sunsettommy said:


> The state of Texas has made a response, from SCOTUS website:
> 
> 
> 
> Dec 11 2020Reply of State of Texas submitted.​Main Document
> 
> 
> LINK



Devistating to these states, and Biden's chances...


----------



## meaner gene

bripat9643 said:


> Asymptomatic is not the same thing as immune, moron.





bripat9643 said:


> Of course immunity is asymptomatic.



Do you remember this one?


----------



## bripat9643

meaner gene said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asymptomatic is not the same thing as immune, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course immunity is asymptomatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you remember this one?
Click to expand...

Yes.  They are both true.  I find it hilarious to discover that you are so stupid that you believe that's a contradiction.


----------



## meaner gene

bripat9643 said:


> When did you cite your source on the Supreme Court saying "a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials?"








						Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
					

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars



					constitutioncenter.org
				




The actual text



*Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting ...*
www.supremecourt.gov › opinions

Jun 29, 2015 — The _Elections Clause and_ 2 _U. S. C._ §2a(c) permit _Arizona's_ use of a commission to adopt congressional districts. Pp. 15–35. (a) Redistricting is ...


----------



## meaner gene

bripat9643 said:


> Asymptomatic is not the same thing as immune, moron.





bripat9643 said:


> Of course immunity is asymptomatic.



Do you remember this one?


bripat9643 said:


> Yes.  They are both true.  I find it hilarious to discover that you are so stupid that you believe that's a contradiction.


You failed logic. 
You said immune equals asymptomatic
And then asymptomatic doesn't equal immune
Meaning there are asymptomatic people who suffer from the effects of covid.


----------



## BlindBoo

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But first you must ignore the established law and order of the State and Federal Courts who rule by precedent. Also you must ignore the established State and Federal election laws to disallow the certified votes and substitute and alternate slate of electors that favor the Loser of the popular vote in all 4 states as well as the entire nation.
> 
> The goal is one party rule.
> 
> 
> 
> One party rule IS the goal...for the democrats. That's why they are already planning to pack the courts, end filibusters, add more states to gain more senators and seats in Congress, etc.
> AOC has already said her goal, and that of her followers, is to rule without being forced to deal with the republican party.
> 
> She's a *demagogue*. Look the word up. She's not  where she wants to be...yet! But she and her party is working on it. Stealing the presidential election in front of the eyes of the nation is a good first step.
> 
> We aren't bound by precedent and your lies when an election like this is stolen. Hypocritical fuckers
> want to cling to law and order appeals after stealing the presidency.
> The Supreme Court is now in play.
Click to expand...


Trumpybears Banana Republicans are the Frankenstein Faux News created.  Then, it ate Faux News.  

We'll soon know how the High Court feels about precedent and baseless hyperbolic subversive accusations that are striking at the 50 Democratic elections that are the heart of our Union.


----------



## BlindBoo

meaner gene said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did you cite your source on the Supreme Court saying "a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
> 
> 
> Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars
> 
> 
> 
> constitutioncenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The actual text
> 
> 
> *Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting ...*
> www.supremecourt.gov › opinions
> 
> Jun 29, 2015 — The _Elections Clause and_ 2 _U. S. C._ §2a(c) permit _Arizona's_ use of a commission to adopt congressional districts. Pp. 15–35. (a) Redistricting is ...
Click to expand...


So the SC would need to vastly narrow is interruption, which would effect all 50 States who have used the broad interruption to make their election laws.


So it's N.F.L.


----------



## bripat9643

meaner gene said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did you cite your source on the Supreme Court saying "a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
> 
> 
> Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars
> 
> 
> 
> constitutioncenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The actual text
> 
> 
> *Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting ...*
> www.supremecourt.gov › opinions
> 
> Jun 29, 2015 — The _Elections Clause and_ 2 _U. S. C._ §2a(c) permit _Arizona's_ use of a commission to adopt congressional districts. Pp. 15–35. (a) Redistricting is ...
Click to expand...

​_One unusual feature of the Elections Clause is that it does not confer the power to regulate congressional elections on states as a whole, but rather the “Legislature” of each state. The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures. _​
It does allow voters to make election laws, but not governors, judges or other government officials who don't have lawmaking power, which means all of them.


----------



## Pogo

OKTexas said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.
> 
> And just HOW exactly is Texas "injured" by what the fuck some other state is doing?   Hm?
> 
> The reference Article II Section 1 Clause 2 reads, and we know it well by now:
> 
> >>  Each State shall appoint, *in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct*, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<
> 
> Read it again --- "in such Manner as the Legislature *thereof* may direct".  Not "in such Manner as the AG of Frickin' Texas may direct".
> 
> This clown should be disbarred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So tell the class, where does it say the State SOS can enter into a consent decree and alter what the legislature directed? Dumb fucking commie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe this post comes in English.
> 
> Maybe not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor commie, did I use too many big words? LMAO.
Click to expand...


Sorry Tovarich, I don't speak 1949.  Today we use what we call "verbs".

But hey, if you wish to remain oblique, have fun.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

BlindBoo said:


> Trumpybears Banana Republicans are the Frankenstein Faux News created. Then, it ate Faux News.


 No actual commentary needed here.



> We'll soon know how the High Court feels about precedent and baseless hyperbolic subversive accusations that are striking at the 50 Democratic elections that are the heart of our Union.


Be careful you don't pull a muscle grasping so vociferously and vehemently at straws.

There are only four states (4 states...*four*) being sued by Texas (though Arizona and Nevada could have
probably been included in that suit).
Dragging the other forty-six states into this is typically disingenuous of you.

The Constitution says election law must not be changed at the relative last moment and changes such as
these are only to be made by state legislators in order to achieve that desired effect,

Speaking of "baseless hyperbolic subversive accusations" your post is absurd and fact free, like all your other posts. Just sayin'.


----------



## meaner gene

bripat9643 said:


> _The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. _
> 
> It does allow voters to make election laws, but not governors, judges or other government officials who don't have lawmaking power, which means all of them.



It also gives lawmaking power to the governor during an emergency, example:  Connecticut

*Further, under § 28-9(1), the governor may suspend or modify—for up to six months—any part of a law, regulation or requirement “in conflict” with the “efficient and expeditious” execution of civil preparedness or public health protection.  *

Note: may modify any part of a law

That's lawmaking power by very definition.


----------



## Care4all

Violations of Election Law:

*The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots*.

The SOS said this is FALSE.... He presented the law and his case, and won I believe, but might be on appeal.


*PA supreme court changed existing deadline for receiving mail-in ballots from 8:00 PM on the day of election to 3 days after the election and adopted a presumption that non-postmarked ballots be considered as valid*.

The US Supreme court ruled on it.  The voters could vote by mail thru election day...but they were separated in case they were disputed at a later time.

Citizens in the State, voted via absentee theu election day BECAUSE the Supreme court, ruled they could.

Some states gave 9 days to get to them....every state is different.


*Election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties did not follow state law permitting poll-watchers to be present for the opening, counting, and recording of mail-in ballots*.

That was proven, in court, FALSE.  Only 1 poll watcher from each party, R, D, I are allowed at polling vote count station.  Those slots were all filled, no other poll watchers could be in those slots.


*The Secretary of State directed election officials to remove ballots before 7:00 AM on the day of election in order to “cure” defective mail-in ballots. This was done only in Democrat majority counties*.

The courts ruled on this in appeal, and basically it did not break their law or constitution to cure ballots in one county or another, counties manage their own elections, and the PA election law describes how and what to check, but does not state those votes not meeting muster SHALL BE discarded or SHALL NOT be cured... or something of the sort, if memories serve?

Regardless, they ruled it was NOT illegal... it did NOT usurp legislative power.

( and if anyone should be admonished it's those counties not trying to ensure their citizen's constitutional right to vote, by giving them a way to cure their ballot that is being discarded for simply missing a hand written date....in many cases)


*Election officials did not segregate ballots received after 8:00 PM on election day breaking the promise made to the U.S. Supreme Court thus making it impossible to identify or remove those ballots*

FALSE
They did segregate the ballots received after 8pm election night, ordered by the Secretary of state before Alito told them to.


----------



## meaner gene

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> There are only four states (4 states...*four*) being sued by Texas (though Arizona and Nevada could have
> probably been included in that suit).
> Dragging the other forty-six states into this is typically disingenuous of you.


His point stands.  If one state can object to another state (or states) not following what they interpret as their election law, then any state can sue each and every state they view as not following their election law.

If the supreme court grants certiorari in the texas case, they open the door to 50 states suing 50 states.


----------



## bripat9643

BlindBoo said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did you cite your source on the Supreme Court saying "a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
> 
> 
> Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars
> 
> 
> 
> constitutioncenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The actual text
> 
> 
> *Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting ...*
> www.supremecourt.gov › opinions
> 
> Jun 29, 2015 — The _Elections Clause and_ 2 _U. S. C._ §2a(c) permit _Arizona's_ use of a commission to adopt congressional districts. Pp. 15–35. (a) Redistricting is ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the SC would need to vastly narrow is interruption, which would effect all 50 States who have used the broad interruption to make their election laws.
> 
> 
> So it's N.F.L.
Click to expand...

The "broad interpretation" doesn't allow governors, SOSs or judges to change election law, turd.  It only allows voters to change it in states with referendums.


----------



## bripat9643

meaner gene said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. _
> 
> It does allow voters to make election laws, but not governors, judges or other government officials who don't have lawmaking power, which means all of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also gives lawmaking power to the governor during an emergency, example:  Connecticut
> 
> *Further, under § 28-9(1), the governor may suspend or modify—for up to six months—any part of a law, regulation or requirement “in conflict” with the “efficient and expeditious” execution of civil preparedness or public health protection.  *
> 
> Note: may modify any part of a law
> 
> That's lawmaking power by very definition.
Click to expand...

It remains to be seen whether that applies to election law.


----------



## bripat9643

meaner gene said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are only four states (4 states...*four*) being sued by Texas (though Arizona and Nevada could have
> probably been included in that suit).
> Dragging the other forty-six states into this is typically disingenuous of you.
> 
> 
> 
> His point stands.  If one state can object to another state (or states) not following what they interpret as their election law, then any state can sue each and every state they view as not following their election law.
> 
> If the supreme court grants certiorari in the texas case, they open the door to 50 states suing 50 states.
Click to expand...

So?  They already do sue each other on other subjects.


----------



## BlindBoo

bripat9643 said:


> The "broad interpretation" doesn't allow governors, SOSs or judges to change election law, turd. It only allows voters to change it in states with referendums.




The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures. 

The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials. A few states have chosen to transfer power to draw congressional district lines from their respective legislatures to non-partisan or bipartisan “independent redistricting commissions.” 



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> There are only four states (4 states...*four*) being sued by Texas (though Arizona and Nevada could have
> probably been included in that suit).



So the SC would need to vastly narrow is interruption, which would effect all 50 States who have used the broad interruption to make their election laws.


----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> *Further, under § 28-9(1), the governor may suspend or modify—for up to six months—any part of a law, regulation or requirement “in conflict” with the “efficient and expeditious” execution of civil preparedness or public health protection.  *





bripat9643 said:


> It remains to be seen whether that applies to election law.


As long as those changes to the law do not conflict with the election clause, which things like early voting, extending deadlines or voting hours, do not.


----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> If the supreme court grants certiorari in the texas case, they open the door to 50 states suing 50 states.





bripat9643 said:


> So?  They already do sue each other on other subjects.


This is a state suing another state because they disagree with how that states courts interpret their own laws and their own constitution.

There is no requirement that a state enforce a law, only that it be enforced on an equal basis.


----------



## meaner gene

BlindBoo said:


> So the SC would need to vastly narrow is interruption, which would effect all 50 States who have used the broad interruption to make their election laws.


This is exampled by the USSC letting stand the Pennsylvania supreme court adding three days to the deadline for absentee ballots.


----------



## Cecilie1200

eddiew37 said:


> I don't remember anyone plotting to overthrow Trump.  I don't remember them spying on Trump.
> 
> I remember there being LOTS of contacts between Trump associates and Russian intelligence agents... including meetings where digging up dirt and releasing it was discussed.  I remember 40+ indictments and a number of these conspirators being jailed.  I remember Trump pardoning one after he plead guilty.
> 
> Certainly more in jail from that GOOD investigation than any other.
> 
> If I were Trump I would have disavowed those individuals and cheered on the investigation for pushing back on Russian interference.
> 
> But that's just me.



Fortunately, reality and the knowledge of the rest of us is not dependent on your memory and what your masters have allowed to you put in it.  Leftists "remember" a lot of things that didn't happen, and draw a blank on what actually did, based on what their talking points were.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

BlindBoo said:


> So the SC would need to vastly narrow is interruption, which would effect all 50 States who have used the broad interruption to make their election laws.


The Supreme Court is faithfully following the Constitution in saying states that want to amend their election laws need to go through their own legislatures to keep from tailoring their laws for short term partisan gains
as Pennsylvania did...,which sort of undermines the whole pretense that Pennsylvania just wants a free fair
election.

Assuming the SC isn't contradicting the Constitution itself, and I see no evidence of that, aside from the Gang of Four, I see no states unilaterally tailoring their election laws (the way Michigan did) for political gain.


----------



## Pappadave1

When one State violates its own constitution AND the U.S. Constitution in order to give one political party advantage over the other, that disenfranchises the voters in other States who do not do such things.  In this case, FOUR States did precisely that which allowed vote fraud to skew the election results nationwide.


----------



## meaner gene

Cecilie1200 said:


> Fortunately, reality and the knowledge of the rest of us is not dependent on your memory and what your masters have allowed to you put in it. * Leftists "remember" a lot of things that didn't happen, *and draw a blank on what actually did, based on what their talking points were.


You left out Trump "remembering" thousands of people celebrating 9-11 in New Jersey.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Pappadave1 said:


> When one State violates its own constitution AND the U.S. Constitution in order to give one political party advantage over the other, that disenfranchises the voters in other States who do not do such things.  In this case, FOUR States did precisely that which allowed vote fraud to skew the election results nationwide.


But that didnt happen. So no worries.


----------



## meaner gene

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> The Supreme Court is faithfully following the Constitution in saying states that want to amend their election laws need to go through their own legislatures to keep from tailoring their laws for short term partisan gains
> as Pennsylvania did...,which sort of undermines the whole pretense that Pennsylvania just wants a free fair
> election.


They let stand the decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme court, which extended the receipt of absentee ballots by three days to account for the warning by the Postal Service, 

_ the state's high court had cited warnings that postal service delays could invalidate huge numbers of ballots _

Even the Supreme Court knows that legislatures do not act with enough speed or clarity to respond to emergencies.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

meaner gene said:


> His point stands. If one state can object to another state (or states) not following what they interpret as their election law, then any state can sue each and every state they view as not following their election law.
> 
> If the supreme court grants certiorari in the texas case, they open the door to 50 states suing 50 states.


Either a state is following the Constitution or not. Are state election laws being altered by state legislative
bodies or not. That seems very straight forward and not open to interpretation.

And a state may not sue another state based on that one issue alone. Any state suing another based
on how it changed it's election laws (a real stretch to start with) must demonstrate harm... a high bar for any state to get over and not likely to set off an absurd chain of law suits among the fifty states.


----------



## meaner gene

Pappadave1 said:


> When one State violates its own constitution AND the U.S. Constitution in order to give one political party advantage over the other, that disenfranchises the voters in other States who do not do such things. ....



Are you talking about the Texas gerrymandering case?  Where the USSC said that what Texas did was illegal.   



*Supreme Court: Texas state House district is gerrymandered ...*
www.star-telegram.com › latest-news › article213783304


Jun 25, 2018 — Fort Worth's state House _District 90_ is racially _gerrymandered_ and "impermissible," the _Supreme Court_ of the United States ruled Monday ...


----------



## BlindBoo

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the SC would need to vastly narrow is interruption, which would effect all 50 States who have used the broad interruption to make their election laws.
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is faithfully following the Constitution in saying states that want to amend their election laws need to go through their own legislatures to keep from tailoring their laws for short term partisan gains
> as Pennsylvania did...,which sort of undermines the whole pretense that Pennsylvania just wants a free fair
> election.
> 
> Assuming the SC isn't contradicting the Constitution itself, and I see no evidence of that, aside from the Gang of Four, I see no states unilaterally tailoring their election laws (the way Michigan did) for political gain.
Click to expand...


PA argued that these adjustments and were necessary and legal because parts of the law was poorly written and left several grey areas that needed a clarifying ruling.  I believe they were successful in all but one of the cases which was the deadline for mail in ballots, which was hard coded into the law.


----------



## meaner gene

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the supreme court grants certiorari in the texas case, they open the door to 50 states suing 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> Either a state is following the Constitution or not.
Click to expand...

It's not for a violation of the US Constitution, but they allege a violation of a states own constitution, or a violation of a states own laws.

They're just trying to make a federal case, out of a state issue.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

meaner gene said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is faithfully following the Constitution in saying states that want to amend their election laws need to go through their own legislatures to keep from tailoring their laws for short term partisan gains
> as Pennsylvania did...,which sort of undermines the whole pretense that Pennsylvania just wants a free fair
> election.
> 
> 
> 
> They let stand the decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme court, which extended the receipt of absentee ballots by three days to account for the warning by the Postal Service,
> 
> _ the state's high court had cited warnings that postal service delays could invalidate huge numbers of ballots _
> 
> Even the Supreme Court knows that legislatures do not act with enough speed or clarity to respond to emergencies.
Click to expand...

I can't comment on that without seeing the reasoning of the Pennsylvania Supreme court.
And then the US Supreme Court. 

I only know if I had a vote in the issue I would deny voting
extensions.
If voting is a priority for you you will make sure to get your ballot in well in advance
of any deadline.

If you can't be bothered then maybe your vote isn't that important to you.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

meaner gene said:


> It's not for a violation of the US Constitution, but they allege a violation of a states own constitution, or a violation of a states own laws.
> 
> They're just trying to make a federal case, out of a state issue.


That's not my understanding. Only a state legislature can change or amend voting law.


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now we have 17 states joining with Texas.   Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hilbilly states of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a trend. Biden won Georgia because of the suburban vote which voted for a Republican governor just 6 years ago. It will only get worse as rural states lose voters while the suburbs gain voters. The states that went to Trump are at the bottom in education. The red states are hillbillies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Teachers and non-MD Health Care Workers are not quite the most highly educated.
> You Liberals flatter yourselves way too much but you can get away with that because you hang out with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters are the dumbest people on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except for diehard leftist drones like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know everyone who disagrees is a diehard leftist drone. I suppose Arizona and Georgia are filled with leftist drones. You are so far to the right that Ronald Reagan would be a leftist drone to you.
Click to expand...


I know you want to believe I think that, so that you can dismiss any criticism as "Oh, you just don't like opposition, it's not because I'm an idiot or a bad person at all".  Fortunately for you, you're enough of a diehard leftist drone that you can avoid any glimmers of reality that your masters haven't told you to notice.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

BlindBoo said:


> PA argued that these adjustments and were necessary and legal because parts of the law was poorly written and left several grey areas that needed a clarifying ruling. I believe they were successful in all but one of the cases which was the deadline for mail in ballots, which was hard coded into the law.


I can't comment without knowing a lot more about Penn. law and their adjustments.

It seems to me though the state legislature would be well versed in all this and address it all if need be.

The state legislature didn't address any of that, however. It seems to me the goal was getting more mail in ballots which would prove to be (A) very difficult to vet and, (B) more likely to be democrat voters.

As a matter of principle in the states I've lived in (California, Oregon, Washington) mail in ballots are all
promoted hard because of points A and B.


----------



## JimBowie1958

bripat9643 said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you remember this one?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  They are both true.  I find it hilarious to discover that you are so stupid that you believe that's a contradiction.
Click to expand...

I'm not. Stupidity is standard Libtard OP.


----------



## BlindBoo

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not for a violation of the US Constitution, but they allege a violation of a states own constitution, or a violation of a states own laws.
> 
> They're just trying to make a federal case, out of a state issue.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not my understanding. Only a state legislature can change or amend voting law.
Click to expand...


The broad view is that since the legislatures gave the right to determine the Slate of electors to the peoples popular vote, they delegated the power to the states elections laws and all of those who make and carry out the law.  At least that's how I understand it and how governor Abbot was able to alter the dates for mail-in ballots here  in Texas.


----------



## Cecilie1200

meaner gene said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately, reality and the knowledge of the rest of us is not dependent on your memory and what your masters have allowed to you put in it. * Leftists "remember" a lot of things that didn't happen, *and draw a blank on what actually did, based on what their talking points were.
> 
> 
> 
> You left out Trump "remembering" thousands of people celebrating 9-11 in New Jersey.
Click to expand...


No, I didn't.  Unlike you, I don't have a psychotic obsession with hating Trump, and therefore every topic in the world exists only in the context of, "Orange Man BAAAAADDD!!!  The sun came up this morning, and it must be because I HATE TRRUUUMMMP SO MUUUUUUUCH!!!"

Seek professional help, because I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with your insane babbling.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> It seems to me though the state legislature would be well versed in all this and address it all if need be.
> The state legislature didn't address any of that, however. It seems to me the goal was getting more mail in ballots which would prove to be (A) very difficult to vet and, (B) more likely to be democrat voters.
> As a matter of principle in the states I've lived in (California, Oregon, Washington) mail in ballots are all
> promoted hard because of points A and B.


The PA Constitution gives specific means and methods to mail-in ballots, to which the PA legislature agreed to change, but not by ammendment to their own state Consitution, which they needed to do, started but then abandoned that effort.


What the Texas case is citing are the administrative and judicial changes to the law PASSED by the legislature that were not agreed to by the legislature. I think these include an extended deadline, easier signature matching, that sort of thing.

So their changes were illegal by their own state constitution, and the rest not agreed to by the PA legislature but implemented via court orders and administrative fiat, "COVID! says we can!"


----------



## plant

All Trumptards 

y’all have been played!! But do keep playing it’s enjoyable


----------



## meaner gene

\


Eric Arthur Blair said:


> I can't comment on that without seeing the reasoning of the Pennsylvania Supreme court.
> And then the US Supreme Court.
> 
> I only know if I had a vote in the issue I would deny voting
> extensions.
> If voting is a priority for you you will make sure to get your ballot in well in advance
> of any deadline.


How far in advance.  Absentee ballots go out 45 days in advance of the election, and the post office said there could be weeks of delay.


----------



## Hellokitty

Care4all said:


> Violations of Election Law:
> 
> *The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots*.
> 
> The SOS said this is FALSE.... He presented the law and his case, and won I believe, but might be on appeal.
> 
> 
> *PA supreme court changed existing deadline for receiving mail-in ballots from 8:00 PM on the day of election to 3 days after the election and adopted a presumption that non-postmarked ballots be considered as valid*.
> 
> The US Supreme court ruled on it.  The voters could vote by mail thru election day...but they were separated in case they were disputed at a later time.
> 
> Citizens in the State, voted via absentee theu election day BECAUSE the Supreme court, ruled they could.
> 
> Some states gave 9 days to get to them....every state is different.
> 
> 
> *Election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties did not follow state law permitting poll-watchers to be present for the opening, counting, and recording of mail-in ballots*.
> 
> That was proven, in court, FALSE.  Only 1 poll watcher from each party, R, D, I are allowed at polling vote count station.  Those slots were all filled, no other poll watchers could be in those slots.
> 
> 
> *The Secretary of State directed election officials to remove ballots before 7:00 AM on the day of election in order to “cure” defective mail-in ballots. This was done only in Democrat majority counties*.
> 
> The courts ruled on this in appeal, and basically it did not break their law or constitution to cure ballots in one county or another, counties manage their own elections, and the PA election law describes how and what to check, but does not state those votes not meeting muster SHALL BE discarded or SHALL NOT be cured... or something of the sort, if memories serve?
> 
> Regardless, they ruled it was NOT illegal... it did NOT usurp legislative power.
> 
> ( and if anyone should be admonished it's those counties not trying to ensure their citizen's constitutional right to vote, by giving them a way to cure their ballot that is being discarded for simply missing a hand written date....in many cases)
> 
> 
> *Election officials did not segregate ballots received after 8:00 PM on election day breaking the promise made to the U.S. Supreme Court thus making it impossible to identify or remove those ballots*
> 
> FALSE
> They did segregate the ballots received after 8pm election night, ordered by the Secretary of state before Alito told them to.




The changes made removed protections and safeguards against voter fraud, along with making it impossible to conduct any form of a meaningful audit.


----------



## meaner gene

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> That's not my understanding. Only a state legislature can change or amend voting law.


The USSC defined "state legislature" to include anyone the legislature cedes that authority to.  And many states cede to the chief executive the power to change laws during a declared emergency.

And the pandemic has been universally declared an emergency.


----------



## OKTexas

Pogo said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.
> 
> And just HOW exactly is Texas "injured" by what the fuck some other state is doing?   Hm?
> 
> The reference Article II Section 1 Clause 2 reads, and we know it well by now:
> 
> >>  Each State shall appoint, *in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct*, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<
> 
> Read it again --- "in such Manner as the Legislature *thereof* may direct".  Not "in such Manner as the AG of Frickin' Texas may direct".
> 
> This clown should be disbarred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So tell the class, where does it say the State SOS can enter into a consent decree and alter what the legislature directed? Dumb fucking commie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe this post comes in English.
> 
> Maybe not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor commie, did I use too many big words? LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Tovarich, I don't speak 1949.  Today we use what we call "verbs".
> 
> But hey, if you wish to remain oblique, have fun.
Click to expand...



Oh boy, another commie being stupid. Your comrade posted about the powers of a governor in an emergency. I asked a simple question about a SOS illegally entering into a consent decree to alter the legislature directed operation of their election. If you are too stupid to read simple english, well, that's on you.

.


----------



## meaner gene

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> It seems to me the goal was getting more mail in ballots which would prove to be (A) very difficult to vet and, (B) more likely to be democrat voters.
> 
> As a matter of principle in the states I've lived in (California, Oregon, Washington) mail in ballots are all
> promoted hard because of points A and B.


Actually the mix of A and B, was based not on inherent party preferences, but on the parties response to the pandemic.  

Had Trump told his voters to vote by mail, you would be making the exact opposite argument.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

OKTexas said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.
> 
> And just HOW exactly is Texas "injured" by what the fuck some other state is doing?   Hm?
> 
> The reference Article II Section 1 Clause 2 reads, and we know it well by now:
> 
> >>  Each State shall appoint, *in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct*, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<
> 
> Read it again --- "in such Manner as the Legislature *thereof* may direct".  Not "in such Manner as the AG of Frickin' Texas may direct".
> 
> This clown should be disbarred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So tell the class, where does it say the State SOS can enter into a consent decree and alter what the legislature directed? Dumb fucking commie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe this post comes in English.
> 
> Maybe not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor commie, did I use too many big words? LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Tovarich, I don't speak 1949.  Today we use what we call "verbs".
> 
> But hey, if you wish to remain oblique, have fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, another commie being stupid. Your comrade posted about the powers of a governor in an emergency. I asked a simple question about a SOS illegally entering into a consent decree to alter the legislature directed operation of their election. If you are too stupid to read simple english, well, that's on you.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

That idea will get laughed out of court. There is your answet.


----------



## meaner gene

JimBowie1958 said:


> The PA Constitution gives specific means and methods to mail-in ballots, to which the PA legislature agreed to change, but not by ammendment to their own state Consitution, which they needed to do, started but then abandoned that effort.


Actually the PA constitution does not mention main-in ballots.  They define absentee ballots, which are restricted to those out of state, or if within the state unable to vote in-person due to job, illness or physical handicap.

What the PA legislature did, was to write a new law not addressed by their constitution. Not change the law in their constitution.


----------



## OKTexas

meaner gene said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the SC would need to vastly narrow is interruption, which would effect all 50 States who have used the broad interruption to make their election laws.
> 
> 
> 
> This is exampled by the USSC letting stand the Pennsylvania supreme court adding three days to the deadline for absentee ballots.
Click to expand...



That was done by a 4-4 vote, Roberts is an embarrassment.

.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

BlindBoo said:


> The broad view is that since the legislatures gave the right to determine the Slate of electors to the peoples popular vote, they delegated the power to the states elections laws and all of those who make and carry out the law. At least that's how I understand it and how governor Abbot was about to alter the dates for mail-in ballots here in Texas.


Leaving election law up to a person, rather than a body that could deliberate the law
and leave it up to a broad spectrum of views pro and con (including the people themselves)
would greatly decrease the chance of a partisan extremist (like Jocelyn Benson of Wisconsin. brought into office by George Soros' program to inject more progressive leftists into state governments) rising to power and using her Secretary of State office to unilaterally change Wisconsin election laws.

She alone demonstrates the wisdom of not leaving election law to state officials that could drive a state
in a particular radical direction feeling a legislature would bring a more moderating influence.
Wisdom of the founders once more.

As far as what Greg Abbot was "about" to do....get back to me when he does change Texas election law himself.


----------



## Flash

Our Founding Fathers knew we couldn't soley reply upon the Judicial branch to protect our Liberty.

That is why we have the Second Amendment.


----------



## meaner gene

OKTexas said:


> Oh boy, another commie being stupid. Your comrade posted about the powers of a governor in an emergency. I asked a simple question about a SOS illegally entering into a consent decree to alter the legislature directed operation of their election. If you are too stupid to read simple english, well, that's on you.



The problem with that argument is that this is a matter of strict liability.  If an agent of the state exceeds his authority in making a contract, it does not invalidate the contract.


----------



## meaner gene

OKTexas said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is exampled by the USSC letting stand the Pennsylvania supreme court adding three days to the deadline for absentee ballots.
> 
> 
> 
> That was done by a 4-4 vote, Roberts is an embarrassment.
Click to expand...

Would you like some cheese with that whine?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

meaner gene said:


> How far in advance. Absentee ballots go out 45 days in advance of the election, and the post office said there could be weeks of delay.


As far in advance as possible. As someone who worked in the PO for years I know certain mail (political
and tax returns in particular) get expedited treatment. 
If you have your mail in ballot and just sit around holding onto it what are you waiting for?


----------



## meaner gene

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Leaving election law up to a person, rather than a body that could deliberate the law
> and leave it up to a broad spectrum of views pro and con (including the people themselves)
> would greatly decrease the chance of a partisan extremist (like Jocelyn Benson of Wisconsin. brought into office by George Soros' program to inject more progressive leftists into state governments) rising to power and using her Secretary of State office to unilaterally change Wisconsin election laws.


Well, this is what happens when the president doesn't address a coming pandemic, and the states have to declare an emergency, which triggers the chief executives grant of vastly expanded powers over everything from the laws to the budget.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

meaner gene said:


> The USSC defined "state legislature" to include anyone the legislature cedes that authority to. And many states cede to the chief executive the power to change laws during a declared emergency.
> 
> And the pandemic has been universally declared an emergency.


IF a state legislature cedes away their authority (IF) to actually make political law then that's that.
But I'm not aware of any such arrangement.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

OKTexas said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the SC would need to vastly narrow is interruption, which would effect all 50 States who have used the broad interruption to make their election laws.
> 
> 
> 
> This is exampled by the USSC letting stand the Pennsylvania supreme court adding three days to the deadline for absentee ballots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was done by a 4-4 vote, Roberts is an embarrassment.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Haha, look at you... disappointed that a scotus judge wont make a corrupt decision based on partisanship...


----------



## meaner gene

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> As someone who worked in the PO for years I know certain mail (political
> and tax returns in particular) get expedited treatment.


Did you know the post office dismantled or threw away hundreds of mail sorting machines, each capable of sorting over half a million letters a day?
They cut overtime hours and told carriers if they couldn't finish their route, tough shit to the undelivered mail.


----------



## meaner gene

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> IF a state legislature cedes away their authority (IF) to actually make political law then that's that.
> But I'm not aware of any such arrangement.


If they don't specify which laws the executive can or can't change. Then they're allowed to change them all, as long as they're doing so because of the emergency, and it's for the purpose of health and safety.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

meaner gene said:


> Did you know the post office dismantled or threw away hundreds of mail sorting machines, each capable of sorting over half a million letters a day?
> They cut overtime hours and told carriers if they couldn't finish their route, touch shit to the undelivered mail.


I've heard that urban myth but have never seen it confirmed and don't know how that matters to the
larger subject.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

meaner gene said:


> If they don't specify which laws the executive can or can't change. Then they're allowed to change them all, as long as they're doing so because of the emergency, and it's for the purpose of health and safety.


Again, don't forget about reality in all this. There is no state I'm aware of where the state legislators have just
turned over control carte blanche to the governor.
Maybe which business' can stay open and not. But that's about it.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

the problem with the Texas lawsuit is that they can win the case, but the USSC will still not overturn the election, they will tell the states to reform their election laws


----------



## OKTexas

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.
> 
> And just HOW exactly is Texas "injured" by what the fuck some other state is doing?   Hm?
> 
> The reference Article II Section 1 Clause 2 reads, and we know it well by now:
> 
> >>  Each State shall appoint, *in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct*, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<
> 
> Read it again --- "in such Manner as the Legislature *thereof* may direct".  Not "in such Manner as the AG of Frickin' Texas may direct".
> 
> This clown should be disbarred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So tell the class, where does it say the State SOS can enter into a consent decree and alter what the legislature directed? Dumb fucking commie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe this post comes in English.
> 
> Maybe not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor commie, did I use too many big words? LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Tovarich, I don't speak 1949.  Today we use what we call "verbs".
> 
> But hey, if you wish to remain oblique, have fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, another commie being stupid. Your comrade posted about the powers of a governor in an emergency. I asked a simple question about a SOS illegally entering into a consent decree to alter the legislature directed operation of their election. If you are too stupid to read simple english, well, that's on you.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That idea will get laughed out of court. There is your answet.
Click to expand...



What's an "answet"?

.


----------



## BlindBoo

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Leaving election law up to a person, rather than a body



The laws were first passed by each states legislatures.


----------



## Toro




----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> Did you know the post office dismantled or threw away hundreds of mail sorting machines, each capable of sorting over half a million letters a day?
> They cut overtime hours and told carriers if they couldn't finish their route, touch shit to the undelivered mail.





Eric Arthur Blair said:


> I've heard that urban myth but have never seen it confirmed and don't know how that matters to the
> larger subject.


It's not an urban myth, it's what Trump fostered onto the post office.



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/14/postal-service-trump-dejoy-delay-mail/
		


_The new head of the U.S. Postal Service established major operational changes Monday that could slow down mail delivery 

Traditionally, postal workers are trained not to leave letters behind and to make multiple delivery trips to ensure timely distribution of letters and parcels. _

[the hew rules]

_*“If the plants run late, they will keep the mail for the next day,” according to a document titled, “New PMG’s [Postmaster General’s] expectations and plan.*_


----------



## OKTexas

meaner gene said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, another commie being stupid. Your comrade posted about the powers of a governor in an emergency. I asked a simple question about a SOS illegally entering into a consent decree to alter the legislature directed operation of their election. If you are too stupid to read simple english, well, that's on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that argument is that this is a matter of strict liability.  If an agent of the state exceeds his authority in making a contract, it does not invalidate the contract.
Click to expand...



Isn't it a bit early to be hitting the boxed wine and bong? If anyone enters into a contract they have no authority to do, it would invalidate the contract. It would be no different than you trying to sell my car.

.


----------



## Dogbiscuit

Ive been reading practically every comment since this thread started. Im going find it interesting when something is announced to see who's right or wrong.
Ive listened to Dershowitz and some others, and Dershowitz doesnt have much confidence that the SC will get involved to a degree to make a difference. He's also said that he doesnt believe Trump will prevail, but then again he's also admitted that he's not sure, as we've never been here before.
Frankly the anticipation is nerve-racking.


----------



## meaner gene

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> There is no state I'm aware of where the state legislators have just
> turned over control carte blanche to the governor.


Most states have provisions for situations under which the governor can declare martial law.

_*Martial law* involves the temporary substitution of military authority for civilian rule and is usually invoked in time of war, rebellion, or *natural disaster*. Abstract: When martial law is in effect, the military commander of an area or country has *unlimited authority to make and enforce laws. *_


----------



## OKTexas

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the SC would need to vastly narrow is interruption, which would effect all 50 States who have used the broad interruption to make their election laws.
> 
> 
> 
> This is exampled by the USSC letting stand the Pennsylvania supreme court adding three days to the deadline for absentee ballots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was done by a 4-4 vote, Roberts is an embarrassment.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha, look at you... disappointed that a scotus judge wont make a corrupt decision based on partisanship...
Click to expand...



Nope, the SOB ignored black letter law, something you commies just love.

.


----------



## meaner gene

OKTexas said:


> Isn't it a bit early to be hitting the boxed wine and bong? If anyone enters into a contract they have no authority to do, it would invalidate the contract. It would be no different than you trying to sell my car.


Actually it would be no different than your wife trying to sell your car.  Where the title says "mr and mrs OKtexas"


----------



## meaner gene

Dogbiscuit said:


> Ive been reading practically every comment since this thread started. Im going find it interesting when something is announced to see who's right or wrong.


Actually i'd like to see who's man enough to admit they were completely wrong.


----------



## OKTexas

meaner gene said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know the post office dismantled or threw away hundreds of mail sorting machines, each capable of sorting over half a million letters a day?
> They cut overtime hours and told carriers if they couldn't finish their route, touch shit to the undelivered mail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard that urban myth but have never seen it confirmed and don't know how that matters to the
> larger subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not an urban myth, it's what Trump fostered onto the post office.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/14/postal-service-trump-dejoy-delay-mail/
> 
> 
> 
> _The new head of the U.S. Postal Service established major operational changes Monday that could slow down mail delivery
> 
> Traditionally, postal workers are trained not to leave letters behind and to make multiple delivery trips to ensure timely distribution of letters and parcels. _
> 
> [the hew rules]
> 
> _*“If the plants run late, they will keep the mail for the next day,” according to a document titled, “New PMG’s [Postmaster General’s] expectations and plan.*_
Click to expand...



The next day is not weeks as you ignorantly claimed.

.


----------



## Dogbiscuit

meaner gene said:


> Dogbiscuit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ive been reading practically every comment since this thread started. Im going find it interesting when something is announced to see who's right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually i'd like to see who's man enough to admit they were completely wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually I thought about that as well, but didn't want to suggest it.
I was going to suggest a group hug, but I think its too early for that right now.


----------



## OKTexas

meaner gene said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it a bit early to be hitting the boxed wine and bong? If anyone enters into a contract they have no authority to do, it would invalidate the contract. It would be no different than you trying to sell my car.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it would be no different than your wife trying to sell your car.  Where the title says "mr and mrs OKtexas"
Click to expand...



Damn, you're not very smart, are ya? Joint ownership conveys authority to both parties. That was not part of your example.

.


----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> [the hew rules]
> 
> _*“If the plants run late, they will keep the mail for the next day,” according to a document titled, “New PMG’s [Postmaster General’s] expectations and plan.*_





OKTexas said:


> The next day is not weeks as you ignorantly claimed.
> 
> .



If the plant gets an amount "X" of mail to sort, But they can't finish todays mail, only able to sort an amount "Y".

That means they have "X-Y" mail left over.

The next day, they again get amount "X"  Again they can only sort an amount "Y", but now they have 2(X-Y) mail left over.

After 6 days, they have 6(X-Y) mail.  But fortunately you can't mail on Sunday, so they finally get to sort all that leftover mail - A WEEK LATE.


----------



## meaner gene

OKTexas said:


> Damn, you're not very smart, are ya? Joint ownership conveys authority to both parties. That was not part of your example.


And being an elected member of the government conveys government authority.  That is why there's a law against government employees spending money they weren't authorized to spend.  But that doesn't void the sale.


----------



## meaner gene

Ferris v. United Statesj 27 Ct. Cl, 542 (1892), 

‘A contractor who is one of several persons to be paid out of an appropriation is not chargeable with knowledge of its administration, nor can his legal rights be affected or impaired by its maladministration or by its diversion, whether legal or illegal, to other objects. An appropriation= merely imposes limitations upon the Government’s own agents; it is a definite amount of money intrusted to them for distribution; but its insufficiency does not pay the Government’s debts, nor cancel its obligations, nor defeat the rights of other parties.


----------



## OKTexas

meaner gene said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> [the hew rules]
> 
> _*“If the plants run late, they will keep the mail for the next day,” according to a document titled, “New PMG’s [Postmaster General’s] expectations and plan.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> The next day is not weeks as you ignorantly claimed.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the plant gets an amount "X" of mail to sort, But they can't finish todays mail, only able to sort an amount "Y".
> 
> That means they have "X-Y" mail left over.
> 
> The next day, they again get amount "X"  Again they can only sort an amount "Y", but now they have 2(X-Y) mail left over.
> 
> After 6 days, they have 6(X-Y) mail.  But fortunately you can't mail on Sunday, so they finally get to sort all that leftover mail - A WEEK LATE.
Click to expand...



You're making assumptions you can't back up. I buy by mail all the time and it takes an average of 3 days to get a package form either coast, 4-5 days from the day I order meds till they are in my mail box. There has been no slow down.

.


----------



## meaner gene

OKTexas said:


> You're making assumptions you can't back up. I buy by mail all the time and it takes an average of 3 days to get a package form either coast, 4-5 days from the day I order meds till they are in my mail box. There has been no slow down.



The slowdowns were targeted to battleground states.  Texas was not effected because slowing down the mail there would have made no difference.



*Delays Plague Mail Delivery In Swing States Before Election ...*
www.npr.org › 2020/10/31 › delays-still-plague-mail-deli...


Oct 31, 2020 — With Election Day deadlines to receive _mail_-in ballots for many _states_ around the corner, data show the U.S. _Postal_ Service continues to ...


----------



## meaner gene

*Mail delays even worse across Pa., with 42% of Philly mail ...*
www.pennlive.com › news › 2020/10 › mail-delays-ev...

Oct 28, 2020 — In Philadelphia, 42% of all first-class _mail_ is taking longer than five days to be delivered.


----------



## meaner gene

OKTexas said:


> I buy by mail all the time and it takes an average of 3 days to get a package form either coast, 4-5 days from the day I order meds till they are in my mail box. There has been no slow down.



You're talking packages.  The post office got rid of letter sorting machines in order to slow down the mail.  And they targeted swing states.


----------



## meaner gene

*Decommissioned Mail-Sorting Machines in Swing States Could*
www.newsweek.com › ... › U.S. Postal Service

Aug 22, 2020 — Many of the 671 decommissioned _machines_ have been removed from _post offices_ in _swing states_. Added to the existing crisis of delayed ...


----------



## meaner gene

*DeJoy Says USPS Won't Reinstall More Than 600 Removed ...*
www.motherjones.com › politics › 2020/08 › dejoy-say...

Aug 21, 2020 — _USPS_ plants were ordered to remove 671 _mail sorting machines_ that ... Many of the _machines_ have been removed in critical _swing states_:


----------



## OKTexas

meaner gene said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making assumptions you can't back up. I buy by mail all the time and it takes an average of 3 days to get a package form either coast, 4-5 days from the day I order meds till they are in my mail box. There has been no slow down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The slowdowns were targeted to battleground states.  Texas was not effected because slowing down the mail there would have made no difference.
> 
> 
> *Delays Plague Mail Delivery In Swing States Before Election ...*
> www.npr.org › 2020/10/31 › delays-still-plague-mail-deli...
> 
> 
> Oct 31, 2020 — With Election Day deadlines to receive _mail_-in ballots for many _states_ around the corner, data show the U.S. _Postal_ Service continues to ...
Click to expand...



Really, I could have sworn you commies claimed TX would turn blue. BTW npr has less credibility than mslsd.

.


----------



## OKTexas

meaner gene said:


> *Decommissioned Mail-Sorting Machines in Swing States Could*
> www.newsweek.com › ... › U.S. Postal Service
> 
> Aug 22, 2020 — Many of the 671 decommissioned _machines_ have been removed from _post offices_ in _swing states_. Added to the existing crisis of delayed ...




When the average volume doesn't support the operation and maintenance of machines, they take them out, those decisions were made long before covid.

.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

j-mac said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has made a response, from SCOTUS website:
> 
> 
> 
> Dec 11 2020Reply of State of Texas submitted.​Main Document
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devistating to these states, and Biden's chances...
Click to expand...

Bull, Texas has as much of a chance of getting the election overturned as this guy

Eric Metaxas Will Emcee National Right-Wing Prayer Rally to Overturn Presidential Election | Right Wing Watch


----------



## meaner gene

OKTexas said:


> When the average volume doesn't support the operation and maintenance of machines, they take them out, those decisions were made long before covid.
> 
> .


Actually they "supersized" that policy, since they suddenly took out 671 machines after DeJoy took office.  In previous years machines were relocated instead of thrown out.

And you spoke of "average volume", which may be true, but you have to have enough surplus equipment to handle "peak volume"  Duh !

And the post office expected peak volumes for both the november election, and december christmas mail.

So why get rid of those excess machines right before you would need them?


----------



## OKTexas

meaner gene said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the average volume doesn't support the operation and maintenance of machines, they take them out, those decisions were made long before covid.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they "supersized" that policy, since they suddenly took out 671 machines after DeJoy took office.  In previous years machines were relocated instead of thrown out.
> 
> And you spoke of "average volume", which may be true, but you have to have enough surplus equipment to handle "peak volume"  Duh !
> 
> And the post office expected peak volumes for both the november election, and december christmas mail.
> 
> So why get rid of those excess machines right before you would need them?
Click to expand...



Holiday mail is considered in the average, dummy.

.


----------



## Circe

JimBowie1958 said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> They'll weasel out, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know, the SCOTUS justices have skin in this one, with the threats to expand the SCOTUS bench, so I think they are wanting to take action, but afraid of accusations of being partisan, etc, especially from within the SCOTUS.
> 
> I suspect that that they will toss the election results and declare no one won and send it to the House, or tell the state Houses to pick their own slate of delegates,, and many of these GOP snails will be willing to support Biden, so it isnt the same thing as just giving Trump the election by ruling out millions of mail-in while keeping the Trump in person votes.
> 
> I think they will punt to anyone that they think they can get it too and also make them look nonpartisan.
> 
> But My SCOTUS tea leaf reading has never been all that good.
Click to expand...


Fascinating that this is the big news story hardly anyone (but us) are reading. Some 2/3 GOP senators I read today are now openly supporting this Texas action. Remarkable, since they have nothing to do with it: it's empty support. This leads me to think they are trying to pick up support 1. among Trumps huge number of followers, or 2. cover their bases in case Trump actually wins. Because if it IS thrown into the House, Trump wins, from all I can learn.

That would be fun.


----------



## j-mac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has made a response, from SCOTUS website:
> 
> 
> 
> Dec 11 2020Reply of State of Texas submitted.​Main Document
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devistating to these states, and Biden's chances...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull, Texas has as much of a chance of getting the election overturned as this guy
> 
> Eric Metaxas Will Emcee National Right-Wing Prayer Rally to Overturn Presidential Election | Right Wing Watch
Click to expand...



And that opinion is based on your years as what exactly? Dweller in mom's basement? Re runs of Keith Olberman? Too much listening to Brian Steltzer? 

In any case, you nor I know how this will turn out, so, my advice to you is that you kindly stop being an asshole...But my hopes are low.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

j-mac said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has made a response, from SCOTUS website:
> 
> 
> 
> Dec 11 2020Reply of State of Texas submitted.​Main Document
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devistating to these states, and Biden's chances...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull, Texas has as much of a chance of getting the election overturned as this guy
> 
> Eric Metaxas Will Emcee National Right-Wing Prayer Rally to Overturn Presidential Election | Right Wing Watch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that opinion is based on your years as what exactly? Dweller in mom's basement? Re runs of Keith Olberman? Too much listening to Brian Steltzer?
> 
> In any case, you nor I know how this will turn out, so, my advice to you is that you kindly stop being an asshole...But my hopes are low.
Click to expand...

Right. Suggesting that I live in my mother's basement, trashing repected journalists  and calling me an asshole really bolsters your credibility and attests to your emotional maturity and superior intelect.


----------



## j-mac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has made a response, from SCOTUS website:
> 
> 
> 
> Dec 11 2020Reply of State of Texas submitted.​Main Document
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devistating to these states, and Biden's chances...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull, Texas has as much of a chance of getting the election overturned as this guy
> 
> Eric Metaxas Will Emcee National Right-Wing Prayer Rally to Overturn Presidential Election | Right Wing Watch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that opinion is based on your years as what exactly? Dweller in mom's basement? Re runs of Keith Olberman? Too much listening to Brian Steltzer?
> 
> In any case, you nor I know how this will turn out, so, my advice to you is that you kindly stop being an asshole...But my hopes are low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Suggesting that I live in my mother's basement, trashing repected journalists  and calling me an asshole really bolsters your credibility and attests to your emotional maturity and superior intelect.
Click to expand...


None of which I claimed...However, it doesn't take a master intellect to see what you cheating assholes did in this election...As I said I would hope you could rise to a level of discourse that would further the discussion, however, you have proven me right that it is beyond you.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

j-mac said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has made a response, from SCOTUS website:
> 
> 
> 
> Dec 11 2020Reply of State of Texas submitted.​Main Document
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devistating to these states, and Biden's chances...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull, Texas has as much of a chance of getting the election overturned as this guy
> 
> Eric Metaxas Will Emcee National Right-Wing Prayer Rally to Overturn Presidential Election | Right Wing Watch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that opinion is based on your years as what exactly? Dweller in mom's basement? Re runs of Keith Olberman? Too much listening to Brian Steltzer?
> 
> In any case, you nor I know how this will turn out, so, my advice to you is that you kindly stop being an asshole...But my hopes are low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Suggesting that I live in my mother's basement, trashing repected journalists  and calling me an asshole really bolsters your credibility and attests to your emotional maturity and superior intelect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which I claimed...However, it doesn't take a master intellect to see what you cheating assholes did in this election...As I said I would hope you could rise to a level of discourse that would further the discussion, however, you have proven me right that it is beyond you.
Click to expand...




> None of which I claimed.


   You lie. It does not take master intelect to see that you people are either liers of mentally ill. My level of discourse is based on facts and logic. Yours is based on debunked conspiracy theories, lies, and fantasy.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

BWK said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> Sanity?   Do you believe men with tits are women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in intelligent debate. You should too.
Click to expand...

I noticed that you didnt answer the question.  Is that because you are a stupid fuck, or just an ignorant fuck, because you cant say if men with tits are women, because as a slave, you are required to say "yes" men with tits are women, proving how insane you are...


----------



## BWK

andaronjim said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> Sanity?   Do you believe men with tits are women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in intelligent debate. You should too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that you didnt answer the question.  Is that because you are a stupid fuck, or just an ignorant fuck, because you cant say if men with tits are women, because as a slave, you are required to say "yes" men with tits are women, proving how insane you are...
Click to expand...

Off topic comments directed towards your homophobic grievances and hate, aren't being entertained for several reasons. The best reason I am guessing, is that you suffer from small dick syndrome, and the subject of your own anatomy keeps you from staying on topic?


----------



## Care4all

Yahoo, Texas case was shut down, completely...  as I had thought would be likely.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

BWK said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> Sanity?   Do you believe men with tits are women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in intelligent debate. You should too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that you didnt answer the question.  Is that because you are a stupid fuck, or just an ignorant fuck, because you cant say if men with tits are women, because as a slave, you are required to say "yes" men with tits are women, proving how insane you are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off topic comments directed towards your homophobic grievances and hate, aren't being entertained for several reasons. The best reason I am guessing, is that you suffer from small dick syndrome, and the subject of your own anatomy keeps you from staying on topic?
Click to expand...

I am talking about your Sanity.  Do you think men with tits are women?  Really, just squirreling away from the answer must prove that you DO believe men with tits are women, because your prog masters have told you so.  You are suck a prog slave..
See picture below..


----------



## Pogo

OKTexas said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.
> 
> And just HOW exactly is Texas "injured" by what the fuck some other state is doing?   Hm?
> 
> The reference Article II Section 1 Clause 2 reads, and we know it well by now:
> 
> >>  Each State shall appoint, *in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct*, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<
> 
> Read it again --- "in such Manner as the Legislature *thereof* may direct".  Not "in such Manner as the AG of Frickin' Texas may direct".
> 
> This clown should be disbarred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So tell the class, where does it say the State SOS can enter into a consent decree and alter what the legislature directed? Dumb fucking commie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe this post comes in English.
> 
> Maybe not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor commie, did I use too many big words? LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Tovarich, I don't speak 1949.  Today we use what we call "verbs".
> 
> But hey, if you wish to remain oblique, have fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, another commie being stupid. Your comrade posted about the powers of a governor in an emergency. I asked a simple question about a SOS illegally entering into a consent decree to alter the legislature directed operation of their election. If you are too stupid to read simple english [sic], well, that's on you.
Click to expand...


It's no wonder you  can't put a simple subject-verb-object sentence together.  You can't even spell the name of the language.

But ................... "commies".

SMGDH


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

OKTexas said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.
> 
> And just HOW exactly is Texas "injured" by what the fuck some other state is doing?   Hm?
> 
> The reference Article II Section 1 Clause 2 reads, and we know it well by now:
> 
> >>  Each State shall appoint, *in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct*, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<
> 
> Read it again --- "in such Manner as the Legislature *thereof* may direct".  Not "in such Manner as the AG of Frickin' Texas may direct".
> 
> This clown should be disbarred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So tell the class, where does it say the State SOS can enter into a consent decree and alter what the legislature directed? Dumb fucking commie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe this post comes in English.
> 
> Maybe not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor commie, did I use too many big words? LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Tovarich, I don't speak 1949.  Today we use what we call "verbs".
> 
> But hey, if you wish to remain oblique, have fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, another commie being stupid. Your comrade posted about the powers of a governor in an emergency. I asked a simple question about a SOS illegally entering into a consent decree to alter the legislature directed operation of their election. If you are too stupid to read simple english, well, that's on you.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That idea will get laughed out of court. There is your answet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's an "answet"?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

*pats okie's head


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

Circe said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> They'll weasel out, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know, the SCOTUS justices have skin in this one, with the threats to expand the SCOTUS bench, so I think they are wanting to take action, but afraid of accusations of being partisan, etc, especially from within the SCOTUS.
> 
> I suspect that that they will toss the election results and declare no one won and send it to the House, or tell the state Houses to pick their own slate of delegates,, and many of these GOP snails will be willing to support Biden, so it isnt the same thing as just giving Trump the election by ruling out millions of mail-in while keeping the Trump in person votes.
> 
> I think they will punt to anyone that they think they can get it too and also make them look nonpartisan.
> 
> But My SCOTUS tea leaf reading has never been all that good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating that this is the big news story hardly anyone (but us) are reading. Some 2/3 GOP senators I read today are now openly supporting this Texas action. Remarkable, since they have nothing to do with it: it's empty support. This leads me to think they are trying to pick up support 1. among Trumps huge number of followers, or 2. cover their bases in case Trump actually wins. Because if it IS thrown into the House, Trump wins, from all I can learn.
> 
> That would be fun.
Click to expand...

LOL! SCOTUS tossed the suit....without hearing.









						Supreme Court rejects Texas bid to overturn election results in four states
					

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton alleged the states unlawfully changed their voting laws, leading to election irregularities.




					www.cbsnews.com
				





*The Supreme Court on Friday rebuffed a last-ditch attempt by Texas to block electors from four battleground states — all of which backed President-elect Joe Biden — from voting in the Electoral College, delivering a fatal blow to President Trump and his allies in their quest to overturn the results of the presidential election.*_* 
The high court refused to take up the lawsuit filed Monday by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that took aim at the election results in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin. *_
*"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot," the court said in an unsigned order.*


----------



## meaner gene

Breaking News:  US Supreme Court rules that this thread is MOOT !!!


----------



## Pogo

Circe said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> They'll weasel out, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know, the SCOTUS justices have skin in this one, with the threats to expand the SCOTUS bench, so I think they are wanting to take action, but afraid of accusations of being partisan, etc, especially from within the SCOTUS.
> 
> I suspect that that they will toss the election results and declare no one won and send it to the House, or tell the state Houses to pick their own slate of delegates,, and many of these GOP snails will be willing to support Biden, so it isnt the same thing as just giving Trump the election by ruling out millions of mail-in while keeping the Trump in person votes.
> 
> I think they will punt to anyone that they think they can get it too and also make them look nonpartisan.
> 
> But My SCOTUS tea leaf reading has never been all that good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating that this is the big news story hardly anyone (but us) are reading. Some 2/3 GOP senators I read today are now openly supporting this Texas action. Remarkable, since they have nothing to do with it: it's empty support. This leads me to think they are trying to pick up support 1. among Trumps huge number of followers, or 2. cover their bases in case Trump actually wins. Because if it IS thrown into the House, Trump wins, from all I can learn.
> 
> That would be fun.
Click to expand...


Uhhhh nnnot really.
Only once has a POTUS election been thrown into the House, resulting in the infamous "corrupt bargain" that elevated John Quincy Adams to the office.  Andrew Jackson, who got passed over by that corrupt bargain, was not amused in light of the fact that he outpolled Adams in both the popular vote and the Electrical College.  Nor were his supporters, who would later go on to form the Democratic Party, while Adams' party went extinct.

And the only reason that one went to the House was that nobody including Jackson scored a majority of the Electrical College.  This time however, Biden DID do that, by the same score Rump did in 2016, by a greater margin than the two Bush elections (and several others), so the Constitutional process has already run its course, and Texas jumping up and going "WAAAH" about how OTHER states ran _their own_ elections is as irrelevant as it is silly.  Texas-sized arrogance too.


----------



## candycorn

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
Click to expand...

How'd it go?


----------



## Pogo

candycorn said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How'd it go?
Click to expand...


Reading the latest it would appear Texas got itself a Texas-sized SMACKDOWN.


----------



## meaner gene

Dogbiscuit said:


> Ive been reading practically every comment since this thread started. Im going find
> 
> it interesting when something is announced to see who's right or wrong.





meaner gene said:


> Actually i'd like to see who's man enough to admit they were completely wrong.


----------



## Pogo

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> The Constitution says election law must not be changed at the relative last moment



Calling Bullshit.  Bigly.

Linkie?


----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> His point stands.  If one state can object to another state (or states) not following what they interpret as their election law, then any state can sue each and every state they view as not following their election law.
> 
> If the supreme court grants certiorari in the texas case, they open the door to 50 states suing 50 states.


----------



## Toro

Lock this thread

It's over


----------



## Mac1958

meaner gene said:


> Breaking News:  US Supreme Court rules that this thread is MOOT !!!


Well, it was moot the minute it was posted.

While there are obviously a lot people who deserve to have their noses rubbed in this stuff, there's still a lot of more decent people who have just been conned by people who make a living at it.

What an ugly fucking four years.  Almost over, though.


----------



## meaner gene

bripat9643 said:


>



The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.


----------



## meaner gene

Toro said:


> Lock this thread
> 
> It's over



This thread needs to be archived as a record of who carried Trumps water into an unwinnable battle.


----------



## BWK

andaronjim said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> Sanity?   Do you believe men with tits are women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in intelligent debate. You should too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that you didnt answer the question.  Is that because you are a stupid fuck, or just an ignorant fuck, because you cant say if men with tits are women, because as a slave, you are required to say "yes" men with tits are women, proving how insane you are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off topic comments directed towards your homophobic grievances and hate, aren't being entertained for several reasons. The best reason I am guessing, is that you suffer from small dick syndrome, and the subject of your own anatomy keeps you from staying on topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am talking about your Sanity.  Do you think men with tits are women?  Really, just squirreling away from the answer must prove that you DO believe men with tits are women, because your prog masters have told you so.  You are suck a prog slave..
> See picture below..
Click to expand...

Yea, my first guess was right. You have a flawed mental state with small dick syndrome, while using your racist and homophobic hate as a tool to get through your withdrawals. Seek help.


----------



## BWK

Supreme Court rejects Texas effort to overturn election in blow to Trump legal blitz to stop Biden
					

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday said it would not consider a lawsuit filed by Texas that sought to overturn Joe Biden's election victory in four battleground states.




					www.msnbc.com
				




These fucking cult sedition Trump idiots have lost again. Get your asses to the back of the bus losers.


----------



## BWK

martybegan said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more adjectives you use in the first few words of a post, the more we know it's nothing more than your delusions and idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you are argument free. No surprises there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, just pointing out as usual that your post has no point except to show what a mouth breathing gutter wench you are.
Click to expand...

Supreme Court rejects Texas effort to overturn election in blow to Trump legal blitz to stop Biden  You were saying?


----------



## Dogbiscuit

Is this it ?
Who will concede ?
My wife and I are going to go watch some Andy Griffith reruns.
Its been an educational experience thus far.
I hope our country never experiences this again, and I hope we get our voting system changed and/or secured.
There was obviously a problem with it to some degree or we wouldnt be here right now.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Dogbiscuit said:


> Is this it ?
> Who will concede ?
> My wife and I are going to go watch some Andy Griffith reruns.
> Its been an educational experience thus far.
> I hope our country never experiences this again, and I hope we get our voting system changed and/or secured.
> There was obviously a problem with it to some degree or we wouldnt be here right now.



There are problems, alright. All having to do with “conservatives” suppressing votes.


----------



## Leo123

Care4all said:


> Yahoo, Texas case was shut down, completely... as I had thought would be likely.


Celebrating election fraud by Democrat States huh?


----------



## meaner gene

I'm thinking Oprah Winfrey should walk into congress and turn to the republican side of the aisle, and tell them.

"You get a bitch slap...  and you get a bitch slap....."


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Dogbiscuit said:


> Is this it ?
> Who will concede ?
> My wife and I are going to go watch some Andy Griffith reruns.
> Its been an educational experience thus far.
> I hope our country never experiences this again, and I hope we get our voting system changed and/or secured.
> There was obviously a problem with it to some degree or we wouldnt be here right now.


There was no problem. We are only here right now because of a mentally ill old man who sees financial and legal ruin on the horizon.


----------



## Faun

Dogbiscuit said:


> Is this it ?
> Who will concede ?
> My wife and I are going to go watch some Andy Griffith reruns.
> Its been an educational experience thus far.
> I hope our country never experiences this again, and I hope we get our voting system changed and/or secured.
> There was obviously a problem with it to some degree or we wouldnt be here right now.


Our voting system worked fine. The problem was the grifter who opted to lie massively about massive fraud in lieu of conceding.


----------



## Skylar

protectionist said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one of those links contained any evidence for what you are suggesting, you shameless liar. As anyone can see for themselves. And we all know you never read any of them anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> They ALL contained LOTS of evidence for what I said, and you obviously did not read them, or else you're lying.
Click to expand...


Welp, you didn't even see that coming, did you?


----------



## Faun

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!!  FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.
> 
> It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.
> 
> God you guys are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See page 15 for standing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot
> 
> 
> texas ag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scribd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.
> 
> The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't thinking if you think it is simple.  I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.
> 
> If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.
> 
> It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.
> 
> And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.
> 
> Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' *has already been adjudicated by the States themselves.* The answer was a resounding 'No'.
> 
> State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just stated a logical impossiblity.  How does one adjudicate "themselves?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How does a State court adjudicate State laws?* Using what's called 'jurisdiction' and the 'judicial power' granted by their respective state constitutions.
> 
> You see it exercised every day in State court when State laws are adjudicated. In fact, State law is the generally the only thing that State courts can adjudicate.
> 
> Remember, you have no idea what's going on or how any of this works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lawsuit between states, idiot.  What you're saying is that defense attorney can rule his client innocent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing.....I'm saying that a State court can adjudicate State laws.
> 
> Which, of course, it can. And does every day.
> 
> *Texas doesn't get a say in another States laws. *Its the foundational flaw of this entire pseudo-legal turd of a suit filed by Texas. Texas doesn't have standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lawsuit between states, moron.  A state cannot adjudicate a lawsuit filed by another state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A state cannot tell another state how to conduct their elections. Nor is one state injured by another state's elections.
Click to expand...

Exactly as I told the fucking moron.









						Supreme Court rejects Texas bid to overturn election results in four states
					

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton alleged the states unlawfully changed their voting laws, leading to election irregularities.




					www.cbsnews.com


----------



## Faun

protectionist said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know the court isn’t going to take this a insane case, right?
> 
> 
> 
> They have to, or else they wouldn't be upholding* the US Constitution,* which is the crux of the case.  If they don't take this case, they don't exist.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOL 

According to senile, old gramps, the SCOTUS doesn't exist.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

BWK said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> Sanity?   Do you believe men with tits are women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in intelligent debate. You should too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that you didnt answer the question.  Is that because you are a stupid fuck, or just an ignorant fuck, because you cant say if men with tits are women, because as a slave, you are required to say "yes" men with tits are women, proving how insane you are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off topic comments directed towards your homophobic grievances and hate, aren't being entertained for several reasons. The best reason I am guessing, is that you suffer from small dick syndrome, and the subject of your own anatomy keeps you from staying on topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am talking about your Sanity.  Do you think men with tits are women?  Really, just squirreling away from the answer must prove that you DO believe men with tits are women, because your prog masters have told you so.  You are suck a prog slave..
> See picture below..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea, my first guess was right. You have a flawed mental state with small dick syndrome, while using your racist and homophobic hate as a tool to get through your withdrawals. Seek help.
Click to expand...

Yet you cant answer a very simple question, "do you consider men with tits a woman".  So now i am also a racist when i never used color or ethnicity in the argument.  You are a very sad, pitiful prog slave..


----------



## BWK

andaronjim said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> Sanity?   Do you believe men with tits are women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in intelligent debate. You should too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that you didnt answer the question.  Is that because you are a stupid fuck, or just an ignorant fuck, because you cant say if men with tits are women, because as a slave, you are required to say "yes" men with tits are women, proving how insane you are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off topic comments directed towards your homophobic grievances and hate, aren't being entertained for several reasons. The best reason I am guessing, is that you suffer from small dick syndrome, and the subject of your own anatomy keeps you from staying on topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am talking about your Sanity.  Do you think men with tits are women?  Really, just squirreling away from the answer must prove that you DO believe men with tits are women, because your prog masters have told you so.  You are suck a prog slave..
> See picture below..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea, my first guess was right. You have a flawed mental state with small dick syndrome, while using your racist and homophobic hate as a tool to get through your withdrawals. Seek help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you cant answer a very simple question, "do you consider men with tits a woman".  So now i am also a racist when i never used color or ethnicity in the argument.  You are a very sad, pitiful prog slave..
Click to expand...

Wow, what a shallow hateful individual you are. You need help buddy.


----------



## Faun

andaronjim said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> Sanity?   Do you believe men with tits are women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in intelligent debate. You should too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that you didnt answer the question.  Is that because you are a stupid fuck, or just an ignorant fuck, because you cant say if men with tits are women, because as a slave, you are required to say "yes" men with tits are women, proving how insane you are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off topic comments directed towards your homophobic grievances and hate, aren't being entertained for several reasons. The best reason I am guessing, is that you suffer from small dick syndrome, and the subject of your own anatomy keeps you from staying on topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am talking about your Sanity.  Do you think men with tits are women?  Really, just squirreling away from the answer must prove that you DO believe men with tits are women, because your prog masters have told you so.  You are suck a prog slave..
> See picture below..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea, my first guess was right. You have a flawed mental state with small dick syndrome, while using your racist and homophobic hate as a tool to get through your withdrawals. Seek help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you cant answer a very simple question, "do you consider men with tits a woman".  So now i am also a racist when i never used color or ethnicity in the argument.  You are a very sad, pitiful prog slave..
Click to expand...

Trump has tits AND bleached blonde hair. I'd say that qualifies her as a woman.


----------



## Skylar

Faun said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> Sanity?   Do you believe men with tits are women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in intelligent debate. You should too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that you didnt answer the question.  Is that because you are a stupid fuck, or just an ignorant fuck, because you cant say if men with tits are women, because as a slave, you are required to say "yes" men with tits are women, proving how insane you are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off topic comments directed towards your homophobic grievances and hate, aren't being entertained for several reasons. The best reason I am guessing, is that you suffer from small dick syndrome, and the subject of your own anatomy keeps you from staying on topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am talking about your Sanity.  Do you think men with tits are women?  Really, just squirreling away from the answer must prove that you DO believe men with tits are women, because your prog masters have told you so.  You are suck a prog slave..
> See picture below..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea, my first guess was right. You have a flawed mental state with small dick syndrome, while using your racist and homophobic hate as a tool to get through your withdrawals. Seek help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you cant answer a very simple question, "do you consider men with tits a woman".  So now i am also a racist when i never used color or ethnicity in the argument.  You are a very sad, pitiful prog slave..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has tits AND bleached blonde hair. I'd say that qualifies her as a woman.
Click to expand...


Well, America certainly just grabbed him by the pussy.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

BWK said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> Sanity?   Do you believe men with tits are women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in intelligent debate. You should too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that you didnt answer the question.  Is that because you are a stupid fuck, or just an ignorant fuck, because you cant say if men with tits are women, because as a slave, you are required to say "yes" men with tits are women, proving how insane you are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off topic comments directed towards your homophobic grievances and hate, aren't being entertained for several reasons. The best reason I am guessing, is that you suffer from small dick syndrome, and the subject of your own anatomy keeps you from staying on topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am talking about your Sanity.  Do you think men with tits are women?  Really, just squirreling away from the answer must prove that you DO believe men with tits are women, because your prog masters have told you so.  You are suck a prog slave..
> See picture below..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea, my first guess was right. You have a flawed mental state with small dick syndrome, while using your racist and homophobic hate as a tool to get through your withdrawals. Seek help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you cant answer a very simple question, "do you consider men with tits a woman".  So now i am also a racist when i never used color or ethnicity in the argument.  You are a very sad, pitiful prog slave..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, what a shallow hateful individual you are. You need help buddy.
Click to expand...

And again, you wont answer the question. Is a man with tits a woman, if you dont answer this time then i assume you agree with that question...

Fucking lunatic leftist progressive slaves, their masters tell them that men with tits are women, and they believe what their masters tell them.

why do liberals think that MEN can be women? | Yahoo Answers

*



			why do liberals think that MEN can be women?
		
Click to expand...

*


> How can someone with male sex organs and XY chromosomes be a woman? Can I identity as a toaster oven if I feel that I was misrepresented at birth
> 
> 
> Liberals believe men can be women and others (genderque*r) can change their gender literally by the day, but somehow at the same time believe Rachel Dolezal, a white woman who "identifies" as black, is the epitome of racism and white privilege.
> 
> Rachel is now writing a book on identity and transrace-ism.


----------



## BWK

meaner gene said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.
Click to expand...

And Trumps toadies have been reduced to total fools once again. I cant imagine the feeling of drinking Trumps Kool-aid every day, just to look stupid all over again.


----------



## Skylar

BWK said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Trumps toadies have been reduced to total fools once again. I cant imagine the feeling of drinking Trumps Kool-aid every day, just to look stupid all over again.
Click to expand...


Again?

This suit was always just theater for dipshits. It never had a chance of succeeding. 

They never stopped looking stupid for believing it had any merit.


----------



## Faun

Skylar said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> Sanity?   Do you believe men with tits are women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in intelligent debate. You should too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that you didnt answer the question.  Is that because you are a stupid fuck, or just an ignorant fuck, because you cant say if men with tits are women, because as a slave, you are required to say "yes" men with tits are women, proving how insane you are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off topic comments directed towards your homophobic grievances and hate, aren't being entertained for several reasons. The best reason I am guessing, is that you suffer from small dick syndrome, and the subject of your own anatomy keeps you from staying on topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am talking about your Sanity.  Do you think men with tits are women?  Really, just squirreling away from the answer must prove that you DO believe men with tits are women, because your prog masters have told you so.  You are suck a prog slave..
> See picture below..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea, my first guess was right. You have a flawed mental state with small dick syndrome, while using your racist and homophobic hate as a tool to get through your withdrawals. Seek help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you cant answer a very simple question, "do you consider men with tits a woman".  So now i am also a racist when i never used color or ethnicity in the argument.  You are a very sad, pitiful prog slave..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has tits AND bleached blonde hair. I'd say that qualifies her as a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, America certainly just grabbed him by the pussy.
Click to expand...


----------



## j-mac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has made a response, from SCOTUS website:
> 
> 
> 
> Dec 11 2020Reply of State of Texas submitted.​Main Document
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devistating to these states, and Biden's chances...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull, Texas has as much of a chance of getting the election overturned as this guy
> 
> Eric Metaxas Will Emcee National Right-Wing Prayer Rally to Overturn Presidential Election | Right Wing Watch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that opinion is based on your years as what exactly? Dweller in mom's basement? Re runs of Keith Olberman? Too much listening to Brian Steltzer?
> 
> In any case, you nor I know how this will turn out, so, my advice to you is that you kindly stop being an asshole...But my hopes are low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Suggesting that I live in my mother's basement, trashing repected journalists  and calling me an asshole really bolsters your credibility and attests to your emotional maturity and superior intelect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which I claimed...However, it doesn't take a master intellect to see what you cheating assholes did in this election...As I said I would hope you could rise to a level of discourse that would further the discussion, however, you have proven me right that it is beyond you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which I claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lie. It does not take master intelect to see that you people are either liers of mentally ill. My level of discourse is based on facts and logic. Yours is based on debunked conspiracy theories, lies, and fantasy.
Click to expand...


Well then, have fun talking only to people you agree with...Because that seems to be the only thing you progressives want to do anyway...


----------



## BWK

j-mac said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has made a response, from SCOTUS website:
> 
> 
> 
> Dec 11 2020Reply of State of Texas submitted.​Main Document
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devistating to these states, and Biden's chances...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull, Texas has as much of a chance of getting the election overturned as this guy
> 
> Eric Metaxas Will Emcee National Right-Wing Prayer Rally to Overturn Presidential Election | Right Wing Watch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that opinion is based on your years as what exactly? Dweller in mom's basement? Re runs of Keith Olberman? Too much listening to Brian Steltzer?
> 
> In any case, you nor I know how this will turn out, so, my advice to you is that you kindly stop being an asshole...But my hopes are low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Suggesting that I live in my mother's basement, trashing repected journalists  and calling me an asshole really bolsters your credibility and attests to your emotional maturity and superior intelect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which I claimed...However, it doesn't take a master intellect to see what you cheating assholes did in this election...As I said I would hope you could rise to a level of discourse that would further the discussion, however, you have proven me right that it is beyond you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which I claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lie. It does not take master intelect to see that you people are either liers of mentally ill. My level of discourse is based on facts and logic. Yours is based on debunked conspiracy theories, lies, and fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, have fun talking only to people you agree with...Because that seems to be the only thing you progressives want to do anyway...
Click to expand...

People, not just progressives, typically enjoy talking to people with intelligence, sanity, honesty, and accurate information. Try going down that road for a change. You might just like it.


----------



## j-mac

BWK said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has made a response, from SCOTUS website:
> 
> 
> 
> Dec 11 2020Reply of State of Texas submitted.​Main Document
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devistating to these states, and Biden's chances...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull, Texas has as much of a chance of getting the election overturned as this guy
> 
> Eric Metaxas Will Emcee National Right-Wing Prayer Rally to Overturn Presidential Election | Right Wing Watch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that opinion is based on your years as what exactly? Dweller in mom's basement? Re runs of Keith Olberman? Too much listening to Brian Steltzer?
> 
> In any case, you nor I know how this will turn out, so, my advice to you is that you kindly stop being an asshole...But my hopes are low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Suggesting that I live in my mother's basement, trashing repected journalists  and calling me an asshole really bolsters your credibility and attests to your emotional maturity and superior intelect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which I claimed...However, it doesn't take a master intellect to see what you cheating assholes did in this election...As I said I would hope you could rise to a level of discourse that would further the discussion, however, you have proven me right that it is beyond you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which I claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lie. It does not take master intelect to see that you people are either liers of mentally ill. My level of discourse is based on facts and logic. Yours is based on debunked conspiracy theories, lies, and fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, have fun talking only to people you agree with...Because that seems to be the only thing you progressives want to do anyway...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People, not just progressives, typically enjoy talking to people with intelligence, sanity, honesty, and accurate information. Try going down that road for a change. You might just like it.
Click to expand...



What you're really saying is agree with you, and that just ain't gonna happen...


----------



## BWK

j-mac said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has made a response, from SCOTUS website:
> 
> 
> 
> Dec 11 2020Reply of State of Texas submitted.​Main Document
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devistating to these states, and Biden's chances...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull, Texas has as much of a chance of getting the election overturned as this guy
> 
> Eric Metaxas Will Emcee National Right-Wing Prayer Rally to Overturn Presidential Election | Right Wing Watch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that opinion is based on your years as what exactly? Dweller in mom's basement? Re runs of Keith Olberman? Too much listening to Brian Steltzer?
> 
> In any case, you nor I know how this will turn out, so, my advice to you is that you kindly stop being an asshole...But my hopes are low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Suggesting that I live in my mother's basement, trashing repected journalists  and calling me an asshole really bolsters your credibility and attests to your emotional maturity and superior intelect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which I claimed...However, it doesn't take a master intellect to see what you cheating assholes did in this election...As I said I would hope you could rise to a level of discourse that would further the discussion, however, you have proven me right that it is beyond you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which I claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lie. It does not take master intelect to see that you people are either liers of mentally ill. My level of discourse is based on facts and logic. Yours is based on debunked conspiracy theories, lies, and fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, have fun talking only to people you agree with...Because that seems to be the only thing you progressives want to do anyway...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People, not just progressives, typically enjoy talking to people with intelligence, sanity, honesty, and accurate information. Try going down that road for a change. You might just like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you're really saying is agree with you, and that just ain't gonna happen...
Click to expand...

I agree, it won't. Without an intelligent brain, some sanity, honesty, and accurate information, it will be a cold day in hell before people like you will agree with anything. On that we agree.


----------



## bripat9643

Dogbiscuit said:


> Is this it ?
> Who will concede ?
> My wife and I are going to go watch some Andy Griffith reruns.
> Its been an educational experience thus far.
> I hope our country never experiences this again, and I hope we get our voting system changed and/or secured.
> There was obviously a problem with it to some degree or we wouldnt be here right now.


Fat chance.  If it worked once, they will do it again and again and again.  What's going to stop them?


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> Dogbiscuit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this it ?
> Who will concede ?
> My wife and I are going to go watch some Andy Griffith reruns.
> Its been an educational experience thus far.
> I hope our country never experiences this again, and I hope we get our voting system changed and/or secured.
> There was obviously a problem with it to some degree or we wouldnt be here right now.
> 
> 
> 
> Our voting system worked fine. The problem was the grifter who opted to lie massively about massive fraud in lieu of conceding.
Click to expand...

"Worked fine" means it produced the result you wanted.  Bank robbing works fine for bank robbers.


----------



## j-mac

BWK said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has made a response, from SCOTUS website:
> 
> 
> 
> Dec 11 2020Reply of State of Texas submitted.​Main Document
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devistating to these states, and Biden's chances...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull, Texas has as much of a chance of getting the election overturned as this guy
> 
> Eric Metaxas Will Emcee National Right-Wing Prayer Rally to Overturn Presidential Election | Right Wing Watch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that opinion is based on your years as what exactly? Dweller in mom's basement? Re runs of Keith Olberman? Too much listening to Brian Steltzer?
> 
> In any case, you nor I know how this will turn out, so, my advice to you is that you kindly stop being an asshole...But my hopes are low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Suggesting that I live in my mother's basement, trashing repected journalists  and calling me an asshole really bolsters your credibility and attests to your emotional maturity and superior intelect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which I claimed...However, it doesn't take a master intellect to see what you cheating assholes did in this election...As I said I would hope you could rise to a level of discourse that would further the discussion, however, you have proven me right that it is beyond you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which I claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lie. It does not take master intelect to see that you people are either liers of mentally ill. My level of discourse is based on facts and logic. Yours is based on debunked conspiracy theories, lies, and fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, have fun talking only to people you agree with...Because that seems to be the only thing you progressives want to do anyway...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People, not just progressives, typically enjoy talking to people with intelligence, sanity, honesty, and accurate information. Try going down that road for a change. You might just like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you're really saying is agree with you, and that just ain't gonna happen...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree, it won't. Without an intelligent brain, some sanity, honesty, and accurate information, it will be a cold day in hell before people like you will agree with anything. On that we agree.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately for you, you will never get me to believe that this election was on the up and up...But, with that said, it doesn't look like Trump will prevail in either keeping the WH, or saving the integrity of the vote, so going forward, it is only going to get worse...This is how our freedoms start coming to an end....


----------



## martybegan

BWK said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more adjectives you use in the first few words of a post, the more we know it's nothing more than your delusions and idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you are argument free. No surprises there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, just pointing out as usual that your post has no point except to show what a mouth breathing gutter wench you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Supreme Court rejects Texas effort to overturn election in blow to Trump legal blitz to stop Biden  You were saying?
Click to expand...


They punted, as I pretty much expected. No argument or even discussion of the merits.


----------



## BWK

martybegan said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more adjectives you use in the first few words of a post, the more we know it's nothing more than your delusions and idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you are argument free. No surprises there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, just pointing out as usual that your post has no point except to show what a mouth breathing gutter wench you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Supreme Court rejects Texas effort to overturn election in blow to Trump legal blitz to stop Biden  You were saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They punted, as I pretty much expected. No argument or even discussion of the merits.
Click to expand...

LOl! "They threw an automatic interception to the opposite side on purpose with none of their receivers down field. 

Republicans did nothing more than  show the world that they are idiots, and decided to show the world, just how idiotic they really are. That was the point they made. Too bad for the rest of us, we already knew that.


----------



## BWK

j-mac said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has made a response, from SCOTUS website:
> 
> 
> 
> Dec 11 2020Reply of State of Texas submitted.​Main Document
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devistating to these states, and Biden's chances...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull, Texas has as much of a chance of getting the election overturned as this guy
> 
> Eric Metaxas Will Emcee National Right-Wing Prayer Rally to Overturn Presidential Election | Right Wing Watch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that opinion is based on your years as what exactly? Dweller in mom's basement? Re runs of Keith Olberman? Too much listening to Brian Steltzer?
> 
> In any case, you nor I know how this will turn out, so, my advice to you is that you kindly stop being an asshole...But my hopes are low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Suggesting that I live in my mother's basement, trashing repected journalists  and calling me an asshole really bolsters your credibility and attests to your emotional maturity and superior intelect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which I claimed...However, it doesn't take a master intellect to see what you cheating assholes did in this election...As I said I would hope you could rise to a level of discourse that would further the discussion, however, you have proven me right that it is beyond you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which I claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lie. It does not take master intelect to see that you people are either liers of mentally ill. My level of discourse is based on facts and logic. Yours is based on debunked conspiracy theories, lies, and fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, have fun talking only to people you agree with...Because that seems to be the only thing you progressives want to do anyway...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People, not just progressives, typically enjoy talking to people with intelligence, sanity, honesty, and accurate information. Try going down that road for a change. You might just like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you're really saying is agree with you, and that just ain't gonna happen...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree, it won't. Without an intelligent brain, some sanity, honesty, and accurate information, it will be a cold day in hell before people like you will agree with anything. On that we agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you will never get me to believe that this election was on the up and up...But, with that said, it doesn't look like Trump will prevail in either keeping the WH, or saving the integrity of the vote, so going forward, it is only going to get worse...This is how our freedoms start coming to an end....
Click to expand...

I don't have to. Your own supreme court gave you the middle finger on even looking into it. Lol! I could give two shits whether you believe it or not. 

However, just to put a footnote to your point, try and imagine the unbelievable stupidity of not believing, with zero evidence to support your position. This is how far the vegetable party has fell off the deep end.


----------



## BWK

j-mac said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has made a response, from SCOTUS website:
> 
> 
> 
> Dec 11 2020Reply of State of Texas submitted.​Main Document
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devistating to these states, and Biden's chances...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull, Texas has as much of a chance of getting the election overturned as this guy
> 
> Eric Metaxas Will Emcee National Right-Wing Prayer Rally to Overturn Presidential Election | Right Wing Watch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that opinion is based on your years as what exactly? Dweller in mom's basement? Re runs of Keith Olberman? Too much listening to Brian Steltzer?
> 
> In any case, you nor I know how this will turn out, so, my advice to you is that you kindly stop being an asshole...But my hopes are low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Suggesting that I live in my mother's basement, trashing repected journalists  and calling me an asshole really bolsters your credibility and attests to your emotional maturity and superior intelect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which I claimed...However, it doesn't take a master intellect to see what you cheating assholes did in this election...As I said I would hope you could rise to a level of discourse that would further the discussion, however, you have proven me right that it is beyond you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which I claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lie. It does not take master intelect to see that you people are either liers of mentally ill. My level of discourse is based on facts and logic. Yours is based on debunked conspiracy theories, lies, and fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, have fun talking only to people you agree with...Because that seems to be the only thing you progressives want to do anyway...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People, not just progressives, typically enjoy talking to people with intelligence, sanity, honesty, and accurate information. Try going down that road for a change. You might just like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you're really saying is agree with you, and that just ain't gonna happen...
Click to expand...

You really aren't intelligent enough to read the tea leaves here boss. It isn't about agreeing with me. It's elementary logic. No evidence produced equals no case. If you can't get that, you have no business on political forums. Or any forums for that matter. You have zero understanding of simple logic.


----------



## Circe

Pogo said:


> Reading the latest it would appear Texas got itself a Texas-sized SMACKDOWN.



Looks from the animations as though you were worried for a few days there ----

I suddenly woke up and wondered if most of us had stopped paying attention too soon. I was surprised at all the support this measure got from states attorneys and from high-level GOP politicians. 

However, it came to nothing.


----------



## Pogo

Circe said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading the latest it would appear Texas got itself a Texas-sized SMACKDOWN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks from the animations as though you were worried for a few days there ----
> 
> I suddenly woke up and wondered if most of us had stopped paying attention too soon. I was surprised at all the support this measure got from states attorneys and from high-level GOP politicians.
> 
> However, it came to nothing.
Click to expand...


Actually I was going for the shoot-self-in-the-foot gif and by chance came across the others.
I stole Iwo Jima from Dalia


----------



## BWK

Circe said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading the latest it would appear Texas got itself a Texas-sized SMACKDOWN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks from the animations as though you were worried for a few days there ----
> 
> I suddenly woke up and wondered if most of us had stopped paying attention too soon. I was surprised at all the support this measure got from states attorneys and from high-level GOP politicians.
> 
> However, it came to nothing.
Click to expand...

Anything that originates from a cult is not surprising.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogbiscuit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this it ?
> Who will concede ?
> My wife and I are going to go watch some Andy Griffith reruns.
> Its been an educational experience thus far.
> I hope our country never experiences this again, and I hope we get our voting system changed and/or secured.
> There was obviously a problem with it to some degree or we wouldnt be here right now.
> 
> 
> 
> Our voting system worked fine. The problem was the grifter who opted to lie massively about massive fraud in lieu of conceding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Worked fine" means it produced the result you wanted.  Bank robbing works fine for bank robbers.
Click to expand...

No, fucking moron, it means rightards utterly failed to prove any widespread fraud.


----------



## candycorn

andaronjim said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally troubled Texas A.G. concocts absurd election lawsuit as Trump muses about pardons  If you had told me this kind of crazy stuff was going on, I would have never believed you originally. But then again, we are talking about Republicans and their cult base, so yes, it is totally believable.  We of course are talking about these insane and totally stupid law suits by Ken Paxton to over turn the election, who of course is under criminal indictment himself. This is the typical nonsensical Rudy Giuliani play book, where you go after the folks who are investigating you, while you yourself are being investigated for criminal activity. Needless to say this is going to backfire on Paxton and the idiot base who believe this craziness. Paxton and the Republican party have descended into full, all out bonkers. Unleashing crackpots and criminals is not a winning strategy. Apparently the majority of the party isn't smart enough to see that. They have become the laughing stock of the country. Thank goodness we still have a majority who care and vote for sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> Sanity?   Do you believe men with tits are women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in intelligent debate. You should too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that you didnt answer the question.  Is that because you are a stupid fuck, or just an ignorant fuck, because you cant say if men with tits are women, because as a slave, you are required to say "yes" men with tits are women, proving how insane you are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off topic comments directed towards your homophobic grievances and hate, aren't being entertained for several reasons. The best reason I am guessing, is that you suffer from small dick syndrome, and the subject of your own anatomy keeps you from staying on topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am talking about your Sanity.  Do you think men with tits are women?  Really, just squirreling away from the answer must prove that you DO believe men with tits are women, because your prog masters have told you so.  You are suck a prog slave..
> See picture below..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea, my first guess was right. You have a flawed mental state with small dick syndrome, while using your racist and homophobic hate as a tool to get through your withdrawals. Seek help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you cant answer a very simple question, "do you consider men with tits a woman".  So now i am also a racist when i never used color or ethnicity in the argument.  You are a very sad, pitiful prog slave..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, what a shallow hateful individual you are. You need help buddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, you wont answer the question. Is a man with tits a woman, if you dont answer this time then i assume you agree with that question...
> 
> Fucking lunatic leftist progressive slaves, their masters tell them that men with tits are women, and they believe what their masters tell them.
> 
> why do liberals think that MEN can be women? | Yahoo Answers
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> why do liberals think that MEN can be women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> How can someone with male sex organs and XY chromosomes be a woman? Can I identity as a toaster oven if I feel that I was misrepresented at birth
> 
> 
> Liberals believe men can be women and others (genderque*r) can change their gender literally by the day, but somehow at the same time believe Rachel Dolezal, a white woman who "identifies" as black, is the epitome of racism and white privilege.
> 
> Rachel is now writing a book on identity and transrace-ism.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





.

That should clear it up.


----------



## candycorn

j-mac said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has made a response, from SCOTUS website:
> 
> 
> 
> Dec 11 2020Reply of State of Texas submitted.​Main Document
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devistating to these states, and Biden's chances...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull, Texas has as much of a chance of getting the election overturned as this guy
> 
> Eric Metaxas Will Emcee National Right-Wing Prayer Rally to Overturn Presidential Election | Right Wing Watch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that opinion is based on your years as what exactly? Dweller in mom's basement? Re runs of Keith Olberman? Too much listening to Brian Steltzer?
> 
> In any case, you nor I know how this will turn out, so, my advice to you is that you kindly stop being an asshole...But my hopes are low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Suggesting that I live in my mother's basement, trashing repected journalists  and calling me an asshole really bolsters your credibility and attests to your emotional maturity and superior intelect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which I claimed...However, it doesn't take a master intellect to see what you cheating assholes did in this election...As I said I would hope you could rise to a level of discourse that would further the discussion, however, you have proven me right that it is beyond you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which I claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lie. It does not take master intelect to see that you people are either liers of mentally ill. My level of discourse is based on facts and logic. Yours is based on debunked conspiracy theories, lies, and fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, have fun talking only to people you agree with...Because that seems to be the only thing you progressives want to do anyway...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People, not just progressives, typically enjoy talking to people with intelligence, sanity, honesty, and accurate information. Try going down that road for a change. You might just like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you're really saying is agree with you, and that just ain't gonna happen...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree, it won't. Without an intelligent brain, some sanity, honesty, and accurate information, it will be a cold day in hell before people like you will agree with anything. On that we agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you will never get me to believe that this election was on the up and up..
Click to expand...


You can't count the number of shits I don't give....


----------



## Dalia

Pogo said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading the latest it would appear Texas got itself a Texas-sized SMACKDOWN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks from the animations as though you were worried for a few days there ----
> 
> I suddenly woke up and wondered if most of us had stopped paying attention too soon. I was surprised at all the support this measure got from states attorneys and from high-level GOP politicians.
> 
> However, it came to nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I was going for the shoot-self-in-the-foot gif and by chance came across the others.
> I stole Iwo Jima from Dalia
Click to expand...

Pogo, I don't understand ? did i miss something ?


----------



## Pogo

Dalia said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading the latest it would appear Texas got itself a Texas-sized SMACKDOWN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks from the animations as though you were worried for a few days there ----
> 
> I suddenly woke up and wondered if most of us had stopped paying attention too soon. I was surprised at all the support this measure got from states attorneys and from high-level GOP politicians.
> 
> However, it came to nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I was going for the shoot-self-in-the-foot gif and by chance came across the others.
> I stole Iwo Jima from Dalia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pogo, I don't understand ? did i miss something ?
Click to expand...


Just acknowledging you chére.  See that smiley above, this one





I stole it from you.


----------



## Dalia

Ok, Pogo pas de souci. it is a cool smiley


----------



## j-mac

candycorn said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state of Texas has made a response, from SCOTUS website:
> 
> 
> 
> Dec 11 2020Reply of State of Texas submitted.​Main Document
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devistating to these states, and Biden's chances...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull, Texas has as much of a chance of getting the election overturned as this guy
> 
> Eric Metaxas Will Emcee National Right-Wing Prayer Rally to Overturn Presidential Election | Right Wing Watch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that opinion is based on your years as what exactly? Dweller in mom's basement? Re runs of Keith Olberman? Too much listening to Brian Steltzer?
> 
> In any case, you nor I know how this will turn out, so, my advice to you is that you kindly stop being an asshole...But my hopes are low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Suggesting that I live in my mother's basement, trashing repected journalists  and calling me an asshole really bolsters your credibility and attests to your emotional maturity and superior intelect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which I claimed...However, it doesn't take a master intellect to see what you cheating assholes did in this election...As I said I would hope you could rise to a level of discourse that would further the discussion, however, you have proven me right that it is beyond you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which I claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lie. It does not take master intelect to see that you people are either liers of mentally ill. My level of discourse is based on facts and logic. Yours is based on debunked conspiracy theories, lies, and fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, have fun talking only to people you agree with...Because that seems to be the only thing you progressives want to do anyway...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People, not just progressives, typically enjoy talking to people with intelligence, sanity, honesty, and accurate information. Try going down that road for a change. You might just like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you're really saying is agree with you, and that just ain't gonna happen...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree, it won't. Without an intelligent brain, some sanity, honesty, and accurate information, it will be a cold day in hell before people like you will agree with anything. On that we agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you will never get me to believe that this election was on the up and up..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't count the number of shits I don't give....
Click to expand...


See a doctor


----------



## candycorn

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> 
> 
> 
> *Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not,** these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.*​*…*​*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ **election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution**. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but **their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State **and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​
Click to expand...

How'd it go?


----------



## Faun

protectionist said:


> They have to, or else they wouldn't be upholding* the US Constitution,* which is the crux of the case.  If they don't take this case, they don't exist.



LOL


----------



## Penelope

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​


Everyone goes to the Supreme Court in TX. Mi voted to have a commission in 2018.

So now every state wishes something to do differently in other states. Abortion will be next.
I'll tell you what, every state is different.


----------



## protectionist

Faun said:


> LOL


The court defaulted on their responsibility, same as other courts, but that doesnt keep them from making rulings in the future.  Time will tell.

In the meantime, safeguards have been put in place to stop frauds that occured in 2020, and things are not looking good for Democrats in 2022/2024.


----------



## bravoactual

protectionist said:


> The court defaulted on their responsibility, same as other courts, but that doesnt keep them from making rulings in the future.  Time will tell.
> 
> In the meantime, safeguards have been put in place to stop frauds that occured in 2020, and things are not looking good for Democrats in 2022/2024.



"*The Courts*" looked the filings and saw them to be pure and unadulerated Bull Shit.  Over 60+Law Suits Filed and over 60+Lawsuits lost.  Do not blame the courts for doing the job they are suppose to do, protect our Electoral Process.

There is no evidence of Voter Fraud.  None.  Except of course the phone calls the Traitor made to the Govenor and Secretary of State of Georgia.

In order support a charge of Voter Fraud, there must first be Evidence of Voter Fraud and there is none.  Even the Traitor's Favorite Butt Boy Billie Barr said there was NO VOTER FRAUD.

The Traitor's very own Cyber Security Chief SAID THERE WAS NO VOTER FRUAD. 

 Stop lying, *THERE WAS NO FUCKING VOTER FRAUD.  NO FUCKING VOTER FRAUD.  *


----------



## JimH52

Faun said:


> LOL


When the Big Lie is finally gone, what will MAGA whine about then?


----------



## JimH52

candycorn said:


> View attachment 428450.
> 
> That should clear it up.


Let's make it simple:

Biden = President
trump = Not President
*
Live with it.....*


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Just thought I would leave this here.....










						Following election security breach, grand jury indicts Tina Peters
					

There’s no shortage of local election officials who bought into the Big Lie, but by any fair measure, Colorado's Tina Peters is a special case.




					www.msnbc.com
				




Funny how the folks who allege all of this voter fraud keeps getting arrested themselves....for doing the very shit they have accused others of doing.


----------



## otto105

protectionist said:


> The court defaulted on their responsibility, same as other courts, but that doesnt keep them from making rulings in the future.  Time will tell.
> 
> In the meantime, safeguards have been put in place to stop frauds that occured in 2020, and things are not looking good for Democrats in 2022/2024.


What fraud?

Can you offer specific examples?


----------



## Faun

protectionist said:


> The court defaulted on their responsibility, same as other courts, but that doesnt keep them from making rulings in the future.  Time will tell.
> 
> In the meantime, safeguards have been put in place to stop frauds that occured in 2020, and things are not looking good for Democrats in 2022/2024.



Aww, you poor thing. The courts upheld the law. Sucks for you.


----------



## Faun

JimH52 said:


> When the Big Lie is finally gone, what will MAGA whine about then?



It will never be completely gone. Like Birthers, Truthers, Flat Earthers and Fake Moon Landers, there will always be some poor Trumpsters crying about the 2020 election.


----------



## protectionist

otto105 said:


> What fraud?
> 
> Can you offer specific examples?







__





						GOP voter suppression tactics are quite real but you won’t find them nationwide
					

Lol names? Since when have names of people been the standard of proof for something like this. Your desperation to win arguments is pretty pathetic. Even if i did know the names of those people, you would still say “well prove it” like a child. Of course I’ve already given you proof. I gave you...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				








__





						More Voter Suppression Is Needed, Not Less
					

It also makes her look foolish when she tells the author of the OP > "nobody listens to you", while the OP has 10 positive ratings.  I think what it comes down to brother or sister is that we need to use our mind and consiosness to see what is really going on. I think the fact is that our votes...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				








__





						If Trump were to run in 2024, a new poll shows he will easily win.
					

Is there a doctor in the house ?  I mean really.    Me too. Where is the evidence the election was stolen?



					www.usmessageboard.com
				








__





						If Trump were to run in 2024, a new poll shows he will easily win.
					

I hope he runs Republicans deserve him  If Trump runs, count on Biden running again  He knows how to beat him  Fraud



					www.usmessageboard.com
				








__





						Trump On Woodward Tape Admitting To Lying About Seriousness Of Coronavirus
					

America spoke in November -- he failed with Coronavirus.  The Kung Flu was a difficult issue to handle.



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## protectionist

Faun said:


> Aww, you poor thing. The courts upheld the law. Sucks for you.


They did not. They failed to review the evidences (Post 2039). They defaulted.


----------



## protectionist

Faun said:


> It will never be completely gone. Like Birthers, Truthers, Flat Earthers and Fake Moon Landers, there will always be some poor Trumpsters crying about the 2020 election.


Absolutely - when scum like you try to deny one of the worst attacks on US democracy in our history, it will never be forgotten, as much as you fools would like to bury it.


----------



## bodecea

protectionist said:


> Absolutely - when scum like you try to deny one of the worst attacks on US democracy in our history, it will never be forgotten, as much as you fools would like to bury it.


pro-putin posters on this forum are also pro-fat former guy.


----------



## protectionist

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Just thought I would leave this here.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Following election security breach, grand jury indicts Tina Peters
> 
> 
> There’s no shortage of local election officials who bought into the Big Lie, but by any fair measure, Colorado's Tina Peters is a special case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.msnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the folks who allege all of this voter fraud keeps getting arrested themselves....for doing the very shit they have accused others of doing.


If so, it has no effect on the voter frauds of 2020. They were what they were.


----------



## protectionist

bodecea said:


> pro-putin posters on this forum are also pro-fat former guy.


You think I'm pro-Putin ? HA HA HA HA.  You are an* IDIOT*

And the pro-Putin guys here, are the ones who support the guy who refuses to allow US domestic oil drilling.


----------



## otto105

protectionist said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP voter suppression tactics are quite real but you won’t find them nationwide
> 
> 
> Lol names? Since when have names of people been the standard of proof for something like this. Your desperation to win arguments is pretty pathetic. Even if i did know the names of those people, you would still say “well prove it” like a child. Of course I’ve already given you proof. I gave you...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More Voter Suppression Is Needed, Not Less
> 
> 
> It also makes her look foolish when she tells the author of the OP > "nobody listens to you", while the OP has 10 positive ratings.  I think what it comes down to brother or sister is that we need to use our mind and consiosness to see what is really going on. I think the fact is that our votes...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump were to run in 2024, a new poll shows he will easily win.
> 
> 
> Is there a doctor in the house ?  I mean really.    Me too. Where is the evidence the election was stolen?
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump were to run in 2024, a new poll shows he will easily win.
> 
> 
> I hope he runs Republicans deserve him  If Trump runs, count on Biden running again  He knows how to beat him  Fraud
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump On Woodward Tape Admitting To Lying About Seriousness Of Coronavirus
> 
> 
> America spoke in November -- he failed with Coronavirus.  The Kung Flu was a difficult issue to handle.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com


Those are examples of what?


----------



## otto105

protectionist said:


> You think I'm pro-Putin ? HA HA HA HA.  You are an* IDIOT*
> 
> And the pro-Putin guys here, are the ones who support the guy who refuses to allow US domestic oil drilling.


We're not drilling for oil domestically right now?


----------



## bravoactual

JimH52 said:


> When the Big Lie is finally gone, what will MAGA whine about then?



Not getting having enough Bosco for their milk no doubt.

*NO VOTER FRAUD - ARIZONA.

NO VOTER FRAUD - GEORGIA.

NO VOTER FRAUD - MICHIGAN.

NO VOTER FRAUD - WISCONSIN.

NO FUCKING VOTER FRAUD.*


----------



## bravoactual

otto105 said:


> We're not drilling for oil domestically right now?



The Oil Companies have the leases to drill in the U.S., but they do not.


----------



## otto105

bravoactual said:


> The Oil Companies have the leases to drill in the U.S., but they do not.




Are you serious. We're pumping quite a bit of oil everyday.


----------



## surada

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​


How does Texas have standing? Those states didn't harm Texas
 Are Texas lawyers stupid?


----------



## surada

bravoactual said:


> The Oil Companies have the leases to drill in the U.S., but they do not.


That's not true. US production is increasing production every month.


----------



## Lastamender

surada said:


> How does Texas have standing? Those states didn't harm Texas
> Are Texas lawyers stupid?


Their electoral votes determined the winner. 71 electoral votes were stolen. That affects every state.


----------



## otto105

surada said:


> How does Texas have standing? Those states didn't harm Texas
> Are Texas lawyers stupid?


Yes.


----------



## Lastamender

surada said:


> That's not true. US production is increasing production every month.


Bullshit. The WH will not even talk with big oil. Stop fucking lying.


----------



## otto105

Lastamender said:


> Their electoral votes determined the winner. 71 electoral votes were stolen. That affects every state.


Stolen?

Where?


----------



## otto105

Lastamender said:


> Bullshit. The WH will not even talk with big oil. Stop fucking lying.


Why does the WH have to talk everyday with the oil companies?

Does President Biden have to tell them how to do their jobs?


----------



## Lastamender

otto105 said:


> Stolen?
> 
> Where?


Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan for starters.


----------



## dblack

Lastamender said:


> Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan for starters.


Russian collusion!!!!

Eat your nothing-burger and go back to sleep.


----------



## Lastamender

otto105 said:


> Why does the WH have to talk everyday with the oil companies?
> 
> Does President Biden have to tell them how to do their jobs?


What did I say about every day? Come on back when you can comprehend what you read.


----------



## Lastamender

dblack said:


> Russian collusion!!!!
> 
> Eat your nothing-burger and go back to sleep.


Russia again? You must not sleep at all.


----------



## Golfing Gator

103 pages later and there still is no stolen election and Biden is still the POTUS

Sucks to be you all


----------



## rightnow909

Lysistrata said:


> This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot _applications, _nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.


right

in other words TX  has no  interest in fair national elections

sheez... 

why does the term Useful  idiot come to mind?


+


----------



## rightnow909

Golfing Gator said:


> 103 pages later and there still is no stolen election and Biden is still the POTUS
> 
> Sucks to be you all


yeh... ever read that story told  by Jesus

Remember Him?

 (a parable)

about the rich man and the poor man?

you ought to check it out

poor man doesn't get what he wants/needs in this life... dies, goes to heaven

rich man.. just the opposite... has everything he wants... dies, goes toHell

check it out...

*Luke 1619*



+


----------



## otto105

rightnow909 said:


> right
> 
> in other words TX  has no  interest in fair national elections
> 
> sheez...
> 
> why does the term Useful  idiot come to mind?
> 
> 
> +


I agree, TX doesn't have an interest in fair elections.

They have an interest in ones that produce white conservatives.


----------



## dblack

Lastamender said:


> Russia again? You must not sleep at all.


Oh, right - it was the Democrats who were fixated on the phony Russian collusion bs. You guys are all about stopping the squeal.


----------



## Lastamender

dblack said:


> Oh, right - it was the Democrats who were fixated on the phony Russian collusion bs. You guys are all about stopping the squeal.


The collusion was a fairy tale, the fraud happened.


----------



## bravoactual

surada said:


> That's not true. US production is increasing production every month.



OK. But the Oil Companies are holding on to unused leases.  Not to mention the fucking outright price gouging they are doing.  Stock Buy Backs to increase CEO Pay.  Greed....Greeed.....Greed.


----------



## surada

bravoactual said:


> OK. But the Oil Companies are holding on to unused leases.  Not to mention the fucking outright price gouging they are doing.  Stock Buy Backs to increase CEO Pay.  Greed....Greeed.....Greed.


There's a crippling shortage in supply world wide. Don't be a dunce.


----------



## otto105

Lastamender said:


> Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan for starters.


So, the state must not have certified their states, huh????


----------



## bravoactual

surada said:


> There's a crippling shortage in supply world wide. Don't be a dunce.


Do not be insulting.  









						PolitiFact - Fact-checking Biden’s claim that there are 9,000 unused oil drilling permits
					

President Joe Biden said that his policies have not made the U.S. less equipped to withstand the impact of the ban on Ru




					www.politifact.com
				




Oil Companies have leases, but are not using them.  Facts are in fact facts. I have NOT insulted you, please return the favor.


----------



## bravoactual

otto105 said:


> So, the state must not have certified their states, huh????



Arizona - Election Ceritifed.

Georgia - Election Certified.

Michigan - Election Certified.

Wisconsin - Election Certifed.

No Election Fraud was found in these states.


----------



## Lastamender

otto105 said:


> So, the state must not have certified their states, huh????


They certified them knowing laws were broken and illegal ballots were counted. That alone is fraud.


----------



## dblack

Lastamender said:


> The collusion was a fairy tale, the fraud happened.


"It's different when we do it!"


----------



## Lastamender

dblack said:


> "It's different when we do it!"


Works both ways Einstein.


----------



## Faun

protectionist said:


> They did not. They failed to review the evidences (Post 2039). They defaulted.



LOL

Aww, you poor thing. You believe even the courts are against you. Sucks to be a paranoid fool like you.


----------



## Faun

protectionist said:


> Absolutely - when scum like you try to deny one of the worst attacks on US democracy in our history, it will never be forgotten, as much as you fools would like to bury it.



LOLOLOL 

That's great news! I've been making fun of lunatic Birthers & and Truthers for many, many years now. Now I get to add you raving lunatics to the list!


----------



## Faun

Lastamender said:


> Their electoral votes determined the winner. 71 electoral votes were stolen. That affects every state.



They don't get to dictate how other states hold their elections, FruitLoops


----------



## Golfing Gator

Lastamender said:


> The collusion was a fairy tale, the fraud happened.



actually both are fairy tales. 

each side believing one while laughing at the other

Then there are those like me that are laughing our asses off at both of sides


----------



## bodecea

dblack said:


> Oh, right - it was the Democrats who were fixated on the phony Russian collusion bs. You guys are all about stopping the squeal.


Russia!  Russia!  Russia!    Get your slavic cheer on!


----------



## dblack

Lastamender said:


> Works both ways Einstein.


Awesome. You actually got my point. Both sides cling to embarrassing denial when they can't get their way. Look at how the Democrats reacted when Trump was elected. They simply couldn't accept the sad fact that the voters rejected their candidate in favor of a jackass like Trump. So they clung to the delusion that he'd somehow cheated, that there would be some smoking gun that would reverse the results of the election. That went on for four years, wasting countless taxpayer dollars - all because they were too chickenshit to face the reality of their own failure. 

Now _you_ can't accept that voters rejected Trump in favor of Captain Droolcup. ...

Wash, rinse, repeat.


----------



## Lastamender

Faun said:


> They don't get to dictate how other states hold their elections, FruitLoops


They had the same case Bush did. They would have won. That is why the SCOTUS did not hear it.


----------



## meaner gene

Faun said:


> They don't get to dictate how other states hold their elections, FruitLoops





Lastamender said:


> They had the same case Bush did. They would have won. That is why the SCOTUS did not hear it.


The court did not hear it because the plaintiff did not have standing to file the lawsuit.  In essence, you can't sue over something that's none of your business.


----------



## meaner gene

If you don't like the way your neighbor is raising their child, you have no right to sue them.


----------



## Lastamender

meaner gene said:


> The court did not hear it because the plaintiff did not have standing to file the lawsuit.  In essence, you can't sue over something that's none of your business.


It was their business. 71 electoral votes were involved.


----------



## otto105

Lastamender said:


> They certified them knowing laws were broken and illegal ballots were counted. That alone is fraud.


Only a putiniphile would agree with you.

Oh look! One has


----------



## meaner gene

Lastamender said:


> It was their business. 71 electoral votes were involved.


Think about it.  If your neighbor earns $100K, you can't sue them because you think they're making too much / too little.


----------



## Lastamender

meaner gene said:


> Think about it.  If your neighbor earns $100K, you can't sue them because you think they're making too much / too little.


Think about a stolen election because that is what happened.


----------



## meaner gene

Lastamender said:


> It was their business. 71 electoral votes were involved.


No more than it's texas's business who another state elects as their governor, or senator, or representatives in the house.


----------



## otto105

Lastamender said:


> Think about a stolen election because that is what happened.


In Russia?


----------



## meaner gene

Lastamender said:


> Think about a stolen election because that is what happened.


Interesting.  If your neighbor steals $10K from his boss, does that give you the right to sue him to force him to give it back?


----------



## candycorn

Lastamender said:


> Think about a stolen election because that is what happened.


The last deadener ... still at it.


----------



## Lastamender

candycorn said:


> The last deadener ... still at it.


A lot of people are at it everyday.


----------



## otto105

Lastamender said:


> A lot of people are at it everyday.


Yeah dumb dead enders like you.


----------



## meaner gene

Lastamender said:


> A lot of people are at it everyday.


Only a deadheader would continue to argue a moot point.

There is nothing in the constitution that can change the outcome of the election.
Not even congress can change the results now.


----------



## Lastamender

otto105 said:


> Yeah dumb dead enders like you.


Thanks for the input, fuckface.


----------



## otto105

meaner gene said:


> Only a deadheader would continue to argue a moot point.
> 
> There is nothing in the constitution that can change the outcome of the election.
> Not even congress can change the results now.


Last loves kicking dead horses and talking at length about about how the 1969 American lunar landing was a fake.


----------



## Lastamender

meaner gene said:


> Only a deadheader would continue to argue a moot point.
> 
> There is nothing in the constitution that can change the outcome of the election.
> Not even congress can change the results now.


Fraud is illegal. It can be remedied.


----------



## otto105

Lastamender said:


> Fraud is illegal. It can be remedied.


What about lying?


----------



## Lastamender

otto105 said:


> What about lying?


Fraud is lying, simpleton.


----------



## otto105

Lastamender said:


> Fraud is lying, simpleton.


Yup, you do it well simpleton.


----------



## Lastamender

otto105 said:


> Yup, you do it well simpleton.


Originality isn't your long suit, huh?


----------



## meaner gene

Lastamender said:


> Fraud is illegal. It can be remedied.


Murder is illegal.  Can it be remedied?

NOPE.

Not all acts, legal or illegal, have remedies at law.


----------



## otto105

Lastamender said:


> Originality isn't your long suit, huh?


Your grade is a D.

Please inform your parents that you will attend summer school.


----------



## Lastamender

meaner gene said:


> Murder is illegal.  Can it be remedied?
> 
> NOPE.
> 
> Not all acts, legal or illegal, have remedies at law


You have made it clear the laws mean nothing to you. Find another excuse. Your analogies suck.


----------



## meaner gene

Lastamender said:


> You have made it clear the laws mean nothing to you. Find another excuse. Your analogies suck.


Actually I made it clear the supreme law of the land (the US Constitution) is what guides federal elections.  And the constitution specifically details presidential elections.
The constitution says, the election is over and done with. 
The constitution says that the results are final, and no court or congress has the power to change what has been done.


----------



## Lastamender

meaner gene said:


> Actually I made it clear the supreme law of the land (the US Constitution) is what guides federal elections.  And the constitution specifically details presidential elections.
> The constitution says, the election is over and done with.
> The constitution says that the results are final, and no court or congress has the power to change what has been done.


If fraud is proven, which it is to many, they better do something. If a state has the right to certify, they would have to have the right to decertify.


----------



## BWK

JimBowie1958 said:


> Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
> 
> 
> Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:*​​
> ​*Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.*​


So they can do what, decide their own desired election results?


----------



## BWK

Lastamender said:


> *If fraud is proven, *which it is to many, they better do something. If a state has the right to certify, they would have to have the right to decertify.


In the minds of the mentally disturbed there was fraud. 

And by the way, do you have any idea how stupid you make yourself out to be? This is you; *If fraud is proven. *Do you know how many times you have claimed on this forum "fraud was proven", and here you are saying "if fraud is proven."


----------



## meaner gene

Lastamender said:


> If fraud is proven, which it is to many, they better do something. If a state has the right to certify, they would have to have the right to decertify.


You're right.  But you're wrong about the effect of decertification.  If done after the horse is out of the barn, it doesn't get the horse back.


----------



## Lastamender

BWK said:


> In the minds of the mentally disturbed there was fraud.
> 
> And by the way, do you have any idea how stupid you make yourself out to be? This is you; *If fraud is proven. *Do you know how many times you have claimed on this forum "fraud was proven", and here you are saying "if fraud is proven."


I have claimed it because it has been proven the election had no integrity and fraud was part of it. That evidence and facts are ignored does not make it less true.

You are a boring shill that thinks he is clever and is nowhere near it. If you feel compelled to repeat the Big Lie it must not be working. I would suggest you think about it but you do not think, you repeat.


----------



## Lastamender

meaner gene said:


> You're right.  But you're wrong about the effect of decertification.  If done after the horse is out of the barn, it doesn't get the horse back.


Again, you are making excuses for breaking the law. it means nothing to you.


----------



## bravoactual

bravoactual said:


> Do not be insulting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PolitiFact - Fact-checking Biden’s claim that there are 9,000 unused oil drilling permits
> 
> 
> President Joe Biden said that his policies have not made the U.S. less equipped to withstand the impact of the ban on Ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politifact.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oil Companies have leases, but are not using them.  Facts are in fact facts. I have NOT insulted you, please return the favor.



As I understand it, U.S. Oil Companies have something like *9,000* Leases currently being held by those companies.  No, the Oil Companies are NOT acting on those leases.


Now Cons, can you tell us how long it takes for One Barrel of Oil to refined and processed and ready to be pumped into you vehicle.  

Please remember to put your answer as based in truth and Reich Wing/Pooty Propaganda Bulll Shit.


----------



## meaner gene

Lastamender said:


> I have claimed it because it has been proven the election had no integrity and fraud was part of it. That evidence and facts are ignored does not make it less true.


You clearly ignore that the subject is moot.  The constitution sets January 20th as the absolute deadline for congress to decide who will be president.  Even if they can't decide, the laws and the constitution decides for them.

All decisions are final.


----------



## meaner gene

Lastamender said:


> Again, you are making excuses for breaking the law. it means nothing to you.


The constitution is the law.  You're the one advocating breaking it, by saying the results aren't final.


----------



## Lastamender

meaner gene said:


> You clearly ignore that the subject is moot.  The constitution sets January 20th as the absolute deadline for congress to decide who will be president.  Even if they can't decide, the laws and the constitution decides for them.
> 
> All decisions are final.


Nothing is final but death.


----------



## Lastamender

meaner gene said:


> The constitution is the law.  You're the one advocating breaking it, by saying the results aren't final.


If those results were arrived at illegally it voids everything. What part of that don't you understand?


----------



## meaner gene

Lastamender said:


> Nothing is final but death.


Action acts done and required by the constitution are also final.
Such as when congress passes a bill and the president signs it into law, congress can decertify the bill, but not the law.


----------



## Lastamender

meaner gene said:


> Action acts done and required by the constitution are also final.
> Such as when congress passes a bill and the president signs it into law, congress can decertify the bill, but not the law.


Now you are trying to tell me Congress cannot change a law?


----------



## meaner gene

Lastamender said:


> If those results were arrived at illegally it voids everything. What part of that don't you understand?


That's absolutely false.

And here's a constitutional example.  Say there is an incident where the president and vice president are killed.  if the speaker of the house either declines or is ineligible, it goes to the president pro-temp of the senate.  If he declines or is ineligible, it goes to the cabinet in rank order.

If by fraud or any other reason (like they are presumed dead) higher ranked cabinet officers are bypassed, and a lower ranked member is sworn in as president.  Even if those bypassed members are found, or the fraud exposed, they can't become president.  Another constitutional example of "all sales final"

No act of congress,s or action of a court can undo, what was done.  The constitution is clear on that point.


----------



## Lastamender

meaner gene said:


> That's absolutely false.
> 
> And here's a constitutional example.  Say there is an incident where the president and vice president are killed.  if the speaker of the house either declines or is ineligible, it goes to the president pro-temp of the senate.  If he declines or is ineligible, it goes to the cabinet in rank order.
> 
> If by fraud or any other reason (like they are presumed dead) higher ranked cabinet officers are bypassed, and a lower ranked member is sworn in as president.  Even if those bypassed members are found, or the fraud exposed, they can't become president.  Another constitutional example of "all sales final"
> 
> No act of congress,s or action of a court can undo, what was done.  The constitution is clear on that point.


So you do not care the election was stolen because they got away with it. Thanks for nothing.


----------



## meaner gene

Lastamender said:


> Now you are trying to tell me Congress cannot change a law?


Congress can't change the law.  No finding of fraud can change the law.
What congress can do, is to pass a new bill, which gets signed into law that overrides the previous law.


----------



## meaner gene

Lastamender said:


> So you do not care the election was stolen because they got away with it. Thanks for nothing.


Whether the election was fair or foul, the results are final.

The constitution clearly wanted to avoid a situation where the legitimacy of someone elected, and sworn into the highest office in the land, could be questioned.


----------



## bravoactual

Disagreeing with facts does not in anyway/shape/form alter, change or render those facts.  

It does not matter a big fat flying fuck through goddamn rolling donut if Cons disagree with *THE FACT THAT THERE IS ZIP/ZERO/NADA/NOTHING/NONE IN THE OF VERIFIABLE/PROVEN EVDIENCE OF VOTER FRAUD.  THERE WAS NO VOTER FRAUD.  THE MOTHER FUCKING TRAITOR MOTHER FUCKING LOST THE MOTHER FUCKING ELECTION.*


----------



## bravoactual

Lastamender said:


> So you do not care the election was stolen because they got away with it. Thanks for nothing.



There is no proof to back up your uproven claim of Voter Fraud.

To sustain a charge of Voter Fraud,  there must first be evidence of Voter Fraud.  No such evidence does in act exist.


----------



## Lastamender

bravoactual said:


> There is no proof to back up your uproven claim of Voter Fraud.
> 
> To sustain a charge of Voter Fraud,  there must first be evidence of Voter Fraud.  No such evidence does in act exist.


Yes, there is proof. You just deny it. That does not mean it is not there.


----------



## meaner gene

Lastamender said:


> Yes, there is proof. You just deny it. That does not mean it is not there.


A federal judge went over the "proof" that Trumps lawyers presented to the court, affidavit by affidavit.   And said the affidavits were mere conjecture, speculation and innuendo.  With no actual "facts" to support their claims.  As the judge said "suspicious behavior" is not proof of fraud.
Just look at the statements from that truck driver who claimed he transported millions of mail-in ballots from New York to Pennsylvania.

_Morgan explained in more detail the series of events that he described as “weird.” 

While in Bethphage, New York, on October 21, Morgan said an expeditor made “three references to ballots that were to be loaded into my trailer including saying hey you have ballots today.” Morgan said that in total he saw “24 gaylords, or large cardboard containers of ballots” loaded on to his trailer. These gaylords, he explained, contained plastic trays of ballots “stacked on top of each other” with “handwritten return addresses.” Morgan said these were “complete ballots.” _


----------



## Lastamender

bravoactual said:


> There is no proof to back up your uproven claim of Voter Fraud.
> 
> To sustain a charge of Voter Fraud,  there must first be evidence of Voter Fraud.  No such evidence does in act exist.


It exists. The authorities refuse to act on it. Next. It is a waste of time talking to a hater like you.


----------



## bravoactual

Lastamender said:


> Yes, there is proof. You just deny it. That does not mean it is not there.



I cannot deny that which does not exist.   You make claims that are not supported by any form of physical evidence.  To sustain a charge of Voter Fraud, you must have proof of Voter Fraud and that is what you do not have and have never had.

*ARIZONA - NO VOTER FRAUD.*

_*GEORGIA - NO VOTER FRAUD.

MICHIGAN - NO VOTER FRAUD.

WISCONSIN - NO VOTER FRAUD.*_

*OVER 60+LAWSUITS ALLEGING VOTER FRAUD FILED.

OVER 60+LAWSUITS ALLEGING VOTER FRAUD TOSSED FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD.

THERE IS NO PROOF OF VOTER FRAUD.

CONJECTURE IS NOT PROOF.

CONTENTION IS NOT PROOF.

INNUENDO IS NOT PROOF.

SUPPOSITION IS NOT PROOF.

WISHFUL THINKING IS NOT PROOF.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD.

THE MOTHER FUCKING TRAITOR MOTHER FUCKING LOST THE MOTHER FUCKING ELECTION!!!!

YES, I MOTHER FUCKING THE TRAITOR.

BUT I LOVE MY COUNTRY.

YOU FUCKING HATE YOUR COUNTRY.

BUT YOU LOVE YOUR MOTHER FUCKING, PUTIN LOVING, PUSSY GRABBING DRAFT DODGING ORANGE FUCKING SHIT STAIN FUCKING TRAITOR.*


----------



## Lastamender

bravoactual said:


> I cannot deny that which does not exist.
> 
> *ARIZONA - NO VOTER FRAUD.*
> 
> _*GEORGIA - NO VOTER FRAUD.
> 
> MICHIGAN - NO VOTER FRAUD.
> 
> WISCONSIN - NO VOTER FRAUD.*_
> 
> *OVER 60+LAWSUITS ALLEGING VOTER FRAUD FILED.
> 
> OVER 60+LAWSUITS ALLEGING VOTER FRAUD TOSSED FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE.
> 
> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD.
> 
> THERE IS NO PROOF OF VOTER FRAUD.
> 
> CONJECTURE IS NOT PROOF.
> 
> CONTENTION IS NOT PROOF.
> 
> INNUENDO IS NOT PROOF.
> 
> SUPPOSITION IS NOT PROOF.
> 
> WISHFUL THINKING IS NOT PROOF.
> 
> THERE IS NOT EVIDENCE, NONE OF VOTER FRAUD.
> 
> THE MOTHER FUCKING TRAITOR MOTHER FUCKING LOST THE MOTHER FUCKING ELECTION!!!!*


Fake   news, asshole.


----------



## Turtlesoup

busybee01 said:


> Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.


Corrupt states stuffing the ballots with illegal ballots does indeed harm texas by nullifying all of Texas's legal votes.  

Fuck you crooked communists---stop cheating and committing all sorts of crimes including at the ballot boxes.


----------



## meaner gene

Turtlesoup said:


> Corrupt states stuffing the ballots with illegal ballots does indeed harm texas by nullifying all of Texas's legal votes.
> 
> Fuck you crooked communists---stop cheating and committing all sorts of crimes including at the ballot boxes.


You do realize that the USSC said that Texas was guilty of election fraud, by creating illegal election districts.   Even the USSC found Texas crossed the line they gave great deference to in crafting gerrymandered districts.

And again, Texas has no standing in the election practices of other states, no more than you have standing in the way that your neighbor raises their children.


----------



## bravoactual

You ignorant Seig Heil, Goose Stepping GroppenFurhrer Lovers sicken me.  I despise each and every one of you.  You do not want our Countr to be a Democracy, you want a Fascist State. 

I hate you for what you want to do to my country.

Fuck you


----------



## bravoactual

How many of you Dead From The Neck Fucking Idiot MAGA Shit Heads Bought Into This One?

The Traitor Scrambles At Damage Control After Grifting You Shit Heads With The Promise of Dinner That Never Happened.









						Trump scrambles at damage control after being caught grifting MAGA supporters with phony 'contest'
					

Donald Trump released a statement on Saturday attempting damage control after being caught fundraising off of a phony contest."Former president Donald Trump’s political group sent at least 15 emails in recent weeks offering small-dollar donors the chance to win a coveted prize if they gave...




					www.rawstory.com


----------



## otto105

Lastamender


Lastamender said:


> Yes, there is proof. You just deny it. That does not mean it is not there.


Where?


----------



## bravoactual

otto105 said:


> Lastamender
> 
> Where?



In a box of Cracker Jack.  Or knowing the Traitor Dietary Habits, a Big Mac Meal Deal.


----------



## bravoactual

otto105 said:


> Lastamender
> 
> Where?



At the bottom of the bag holding the Traitor's Big Mac and Fries.


----------



## rightnow909

Turtlesoup said:


> Corrupt states stuffing the ballots with illegal ballots does indeed harm texas by nullifying all of Texas's legal votes.
> 
> Fuck you crooked communists---stop cheating and committing all sorts of crimes including at the ballot boxes.


like how u get right to the point

we are all losing patience with the lawless *&^%$ who keep getting away with CRIMES

while little people can't even breathe improperly


----------

