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

[Skylar]

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.​

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

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.

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.

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.

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

you would do better if you read it first,,

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.

Can't do what?

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

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

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

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

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

The fact is, there's no writ granted.

then why are you so scared???

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

I'm laughing at you poor, unfortunate souls.

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

maybe...just maybe...

you are wrong.

THE HORROR.

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

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

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

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?

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

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 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'?

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]

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.

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

First day this is in the news.

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

patience my retarded friend patience,,

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

How'd that work out again?

 

[Astrostar]

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]

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.

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

First day this is in the news.

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

patience my retarded friend patience,,

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

How'd that work out again?

patience my retarded friend patience,,,

 

[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

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

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

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

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?

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

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 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'?

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.

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]

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.​

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

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.

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.

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.

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

you would do better if you read it first,,

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.

Can't do what?

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

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

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

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

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

The fact is, there's no writ granted.

then why are you so scared???

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

I'm laughing at you poor, unfortunate souls.

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

maybe...just maybe...

you are wrong.

THE HORROR.

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

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]

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,,

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.

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

 

[Billiejeens]

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

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

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?

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

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 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'?

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

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

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?

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

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 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'?

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.

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.

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.

now?

name a time she wasn't.

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

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

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?

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

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 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'?

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[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.

Running out of bullshit? It shows.

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

 

[Skylar]

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?

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

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

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?

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

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 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'?

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.

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.

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.

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

yet the arguments are being heard.

WAH.