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

[Leo123]

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]

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.

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

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

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

There are no constitutional issues.

Beyond equal protection and the fact state election laws were violated?

 

[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.

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

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

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

There are no constitutional issues.

Beyond equal protection and the fact state election laws were violated?

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]

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.

Ridiculous nonsense.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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

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

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

There are no constitutional issues.

Beyond equal protection and the fact state election laws were violated?

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?

They haven't had time, moron

 

[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.

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

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

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

There are no constitutional issues.

Beyond equal protection and the fact state election laws were violated?

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?

They haven't had time, moron

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]

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.

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

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

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

There are no constitutional issues.

Beyond equal protection and the fact state election laws were violated?

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?

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]

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.

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.

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

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]

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.

Ridiculous nonsense.

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]

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.

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

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

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

There are no constitutional issues.

Beyond equal protection and the fact state election laws were violated?

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?

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.

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]

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.​

lol

So much for "state's rights."

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

eat it.

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]

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 ...

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

The issue is equal protection under the law and preventing this bullshit from ever happening again.

 

[colfax_m]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

Right now, I'm just waiting to see if they'll choose to hear the case.

 

[BlindBoo]

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]

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.

Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???

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

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.

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.

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

They shouldn't, but what should happen and what does happen aren't always the same thing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???

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

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.

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.

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

What unconstitutional behavior?

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]

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 ...

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

The issue is equal protection under the law and preventing this bullshit from ever happening again.

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.

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.

What state law is supposedly violating the constitution?