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

[progressive hunter]

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.

BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states – The Right Scoop

therightscoop.com

Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.

thanks for your highly intellectual evaluation of the case,,,

 

[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.

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 only exist on the state level, because I said so!!!! They can be anything anyone in the state government wants, because I said so!!! How DARE you insist there are other rules they have to follow, when I don't want it to be true?!"

Explained repeatedly, and ignored repeatedly to just be asked again.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, you're explaining why you WANT no writ to be granted.

The fact is, it hadn't been granted because the suit was just filed yesterday.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states – The Right Scoop

therightscoop.com

Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.

If its docketed, they're most likely having a hearing. It doesn't mean that cert has been granted. But it means that they're probably going to listen to arguments.

And the case being docketed for today strongly suggests that the courts recognize the significance of the Safe Harbor date. As same day turn around is extraordinarily rare.

are you saying what the great and mighty colfax was wrong???

by gosh youre right he was wrong,,,

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The fact that you keep desperately clinging to, "The Court hasn't agreed to hear it yet, so that HAS to mean they agree with me!!!" That tells me you're scared. Also the fact that you're determinedly trying to make this about issues it's not about at all, so that you can avoid having to address the ACTUAL issues in play.

 

[Skylar]

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.

BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states – The Right Scoop

therightscoop.com

Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.

If its docketed, they're most likely having a hearing. It doesn't mean that cert has been granted. But it means that they're probably going to listen to arguments.

And the case being docketed for today strongly suggests that the courts recognize the significance of the Safe Harbor date. As same day turn around is extraordinarily rare.

are you saying what the great and mighty colfax was wrong???

by gosh youre right he was wrong,,,

I'm saying what I said: if its docketed, they probably have a hearing. And the fact that the hearing is today strongly suggests the court recognizes the significance of the safe harbor date.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The fact that you keep desperately clinging to, "The Court hasn't agreed to hear it yet, so that HAS to mean they agree with me!!!" That tells me you're scared. Also the fact that you're determinedly trying to make this about issues it's not about at all, so that you can avoid having to address the ACTUAL issues in play.

Dude, if your best legal argument is your assessment of my emotions, you're done.

I've laid out why the Texas case is pure, molten garbage in detail. The courts have not yet granted cert, nor recognized standing. There's a hearing.

We'll see what happens.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states – The Right Scoop

therightscoop.com

Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.

If its docketed, they're most likely having a hearing. It doesn't mean that cert has been granted. But it means that they're probably going to listen to arguments.

And the case being docketed for today strongly suggests that the courts recognize the significance of the Safe Harbor date. As same day turn around is extraordinarily rare.

are you saying what the great and mighty colfax was wrong???

by gosh youre right he was wrong,,,

I'm saying what I said: if its docketed, they probably have a hearing. And the fact that the hearing is today strongly suggests the court recognizes the significance of the safe harbor date.

but he said all it meant was the case was filed,, which is clearly wrong,, and he called us idiots,,,

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Do you? You seem to think that the Supreme Court can do it within five minutes of a case being filed, and if they don't, it means they don't want to hear it.

 

[Skylar]

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.

BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states – The Right Scoop

therightscoop.com

Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.

If its docketed, they're most likely having a hearing. It doesn't mean that cert has been granted. But it means that they're probably going to listen to arguments.

And the case being docketed for today strongly suggests that the courts recognize the significance of the Safe Harbor date. As same day turn around is extraordinarily rare.

are you saying what the great and mighty colfax was wrong???

by gosh youre right he was wrong,,,

I'm saying what I said: if its docketed, they probably have a hearing. And the fact that the hearing is today strongly suggests the court recognizes the significance of the safe harbor date.

but he said all it meant was the case was filed,, which is clearly wrong,, and he called us idiots,,,

That's between you and him.

It being on the docket means there's most likely a hearing.

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

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

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

Correct.

 

[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?

Do you? You seem to think that the Supreme Court can do it within five minutes of a case being filed, and if they don't, it means they don't want to hear it.

The petition was filed yesterday. No writ has been granted. What we have is likely hearing.

At least one justice has some questions. We'll see what happens.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states – The Right Scoop

therightscoop.com

Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.

If its docketed, they're most likely having a hearing. It doesn't mean that cert has been granted. But it means that they're probably going to listen to arguments.

And the case being docketed for today strongly suggests that the courts recognize the significance of the Safe Harbor date. As same day turn around is extraordinarily rare.

are you saying what the great and mighty colfax was wrong???

by gosh youre right he was wrong,,,

I'm saying what I said: if its docketed, they probably have a hearing. And the fact that the hearing is today strongly suggests the court recognizes the significance of the safe harbor date.

but he said all it meant was the case was filed,, which is clearly wrong,, and he called us idiots,,,

That's between you and him.

It being on the docket means there's most likely a hearing.

but he wont listen to me when hes wrong,, so thanks for showing him he was wrong,,,

 

[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.

BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states – The Right Scoop

therightscoop.com

Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.

If its docketed, they're most likely having a hearing. It doesn't mean that cert has been granted. But it means that they're probably going to listen to arguments.

And the case being docketed for today strongly suggests that the courts recognize the significance of the Safe Harbor date. As same day turn around is extraordinarily rare.

are you saying what the great and mighty colfax was wrong???

by gosh youre right he was wrong,,,

I'm saying what I said: if its docketed, they probably have a hearing. And the fact that the hearing is today strongly suggests the court recognizes the significance of the safe harbor date.

but he said all it meant was the case was filed,, which is clearly wrong,, and he called us idiots,,,

That's between you and him.

It being on the docket means there's most likely a hearing.

but he wont listen to me when hes wrong,, so thanks for showing him he was wrong,,,

What is, is. A placement on the docket is an indication of a likely hearing.

We'll see what happens.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The fact that you keep desperately clinging to, "The Court hasn't agreed to hear it yet, so that HAS to mean they agree with me!!!" That tells me you're scared. Also the fact that you're determinedly trying to make this about issues it's not about at all, so that you can avoid having to address the ACTUAL issues in play.

Dude, if your best legal argument is your assessment of my emotions, you're done.

I've laid out why the Texas case is pure, molten garbage in detail. The courts have not yet granted cert, nor recognized standing. There's a hearing.

We'll see what happens.

Dude, your best legal argument IS your emotions. So you've been done before you ever started talking.

You've laid out why the case YOU'VE IMAGINED TEXAS IS MAKING is garbage. You have yet to address what Texas is actually doing, because you haven't bothered to know. You saw the headline, and immediately started yapping about your fantasies. This is obvious by the way you keep parroting, "The Court hasn't granted cert, so that must mean the case sucks", totally oblivious to the fact that the case was filed LESS THAN 24 HOURS AGO, you blithering scrotum hat.

Whatever we see happen, it will bear no relation to your fever dreams.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The fact that you keep desperately clinging to, "The Court hasn't agreed to hear it yet, so that HAS to mean they agree with me!!!" That tells me you're scared. Also the fact that you're determinedly trying to make this about issues it's not about at all, so that you can avoid having to address the ACTUAL issues in play.

Dude, if your best legal argument is your assessment of my emotions, you're done.

I've laid out why the Texas case is pure, molten garbage in detail. The courts have not yet granted cert, nor recognized standing. There's a hearing.

We'll see what happens.

Dude, your best legal argument IS your emotions. So you've been done before you ever started talking.

You've laid out why the case YOU'VE IMAGINED TEXAS IS MAKING is garbage. You have yet to address what Texas is actually doing, because you haven't bothered to know. You saw the headline, and immediately started yapping about your fantasies. This is obvious by the way you keep parroting, "The Court hasn't granted cert, so that must mean the case sucks", totally oblivious to the fact that the case was filed LESS THAN 24 HOURS AGO, you blithering scrotum hat.

Whatever we see happen, it will bear no relation to your fever dreams.

Nope. The Standing issue is obvious. I'm hardly the only one to have noticed it.

Among the reasons the legal challenge is likely to fail, according to experts, are that the court may find Texas does not have standing to sue, it brought the legal challenge too late, or that there’s no evidence to support that the state elections were unconstitutional, and it also may take long enough for the case to be decided that the issue may be moot.

But tell us again how your assessment of my emotions magically makes the standing issue disappear?

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states – The Right Scoop

therightscoop.com

Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.

If its docketed, they're most likely having a hearing. It doesn't mean that cert has been granted. But it means that they're probably going to listen to arguments.

And the case being docketed for today strongly suggests that the courts recognize the significance of the Safe Harbor date. As same day turn around is extraordinarily rare.

are you saying what the great and mighty colfax was wrong???

by gosh youre right he was wrong,,,

I'm saying what I said: if its docketed, they probably have a hearing. And the fact that the hearing is today strongly suggests the court recognizes the significance of the safe harbor date.

but he said all it meant was the case was filed,, which is clearly wrong,, and he called us idiots,,,

That's between you and him.

It being on the docket means there's most likely a hearing.

but he wont listen to me when hes wrong,, so thanks for showing him he was wrong,,,

What is, is. A placement on the docket is an indication of a likely hearing.

We'll see what happens.

dont try and walk it back,,, he was wrong and you showed him that so thanks,,,

 

[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.

BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states – The Right Scoop

therightscoop.com

Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.

If its docketed, they're most likely having a hearing. It doesn't mean that cert has been granted. But it means that they're probably going to listen to arguments.

And the case being docketed for today strongly suggests that the courts recognize the significance of the Safe Harbor date. As same day turn around is extraordinarily rare.

are you saying what the great and mighty colfax was wrong???

by gosh youre right he was wrong,,,

I'm saying what I said: if its docketed, they probably have a hearing. And the fact that the hearing is today strongly suggests the court recognizes the significance of the safe harbor date.

but he said all it meant was the case was filed,, which is clearly wrong,, and he called us idiots,,,

That's between you and him.

It being on the docket means there's most likely a hearing.

but he wont listen to me when hes wrong,, so thanks for showing him he was wrong,,,

What is, is. A placement on the docket is an indication of a likely hearing.

We'll see what happens.

dont try and walk it back,,, he was wrong and you showed him that so thanks,,,

Whatever baggage you have with Colfax are between you and Colfax. I'm not part of your melodrama.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states – The Right Scoop

therightscoop.com

Being on the docket just means the case was filed. You guys are idiots.

If its docketed, they're most likely having a hearing. It doesn't mean that cert has been granted. But it means that they're probably going to listen to arguments.

And the case being docketed for today strongly suggests that the courts recognize the significance of the Safe Harbor date. As same day turn around is extraordinarily rare.

are you saying what the great and mighty colfax was wrong???

by gosh youre right he was wrong,,,

I'm saying what I said: if its docketed, they probably have a hearing. And the fact that the hearing is today strongly suggests the court recognizes the significance of the safe harbor date.

but he said all it meant was the case was filed,, which is clearly wrong,, and he called us idiots,,,

That's between you and him.

It being on the docket means there's most likely a hearing.

but he wont listen to me when hes wrong,, so thanks for showing him he was wrong,,,

What is, is. A placement on the docket is an indication of a likely hearing.

We'll see what happens.

dont try and walk it back,,, he was wrong and you showed him that so thanks,,,

Whatever baggage you have with Colfax are between you and Colfax. I'm not part of your melodrama.

a simple "your welcome" would suffice,,,

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

One state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.