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

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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

Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going on

95% bluff...backed up by little to none actual understanding.

 

[otto105]

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.​

This monkey poop suit will be tossed like every other one.

The texas ag should immediately resign for failing to do his job with any sense of honor.

 

[otto105]

Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!

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

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

www.breitbart.com

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

​

Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.​

…​

This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.​

​

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

lol

So much for "state's rights."

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

eat it.

Move on, loser.

 

[Skylar]

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

Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going on

Some understand and are scared shitless.
Skylar comes to mind.

Or....a hearing just means the case is being discussed among the justices. Today the court denied cert to Kelly, Mike et Al. V Pennsylvania. It received the same docketed hearing that Texas' petition just got.....but on December 3rd.

A hearing merely means the case is being discussed by the justices. Not that cert has been granted, or that the parties even have standing, or that the claims have any legal merit.

As Kelly, Mike et Al. V Pennsylvania's rejection by the courts today demonstrates elegantly.

It merely means that at least one justice has some questions they want to discuss.

 

[Mac-7]

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

Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going on

95% bluff...backed up by little to none actual understanding.

Unfortunately the merits of the case mean nothing if the high court does not want to hear it

 

[Skylar]

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

Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going on

95% bluff...backed up by little to none actual understanding.

Unfortunately the merits of the case mean nothing if the high court does not want to hear it

Or if the case has no merits, the high court does not want to hear it.

 

[otto105]

Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!

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

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

www.breitbart.com

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

​

Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.​

…​

This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.​

​

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

lol

So much for "state's rights."

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

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

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

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

It all makes sense.

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

Who spied on a campaign? What wire tapped anything?

Are all your posts a fact free tour of victimhood.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Who spied on a campaign? What wire tapped anything?

Are all your posts a fact free tour of victimhood.

Sure. This verified Chinese spy just hung around Diane Feinstein for twenty years because he needed a job.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

Remember?

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

Try again.

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

"It doesn't count unless you show THIS narrow type of situation, which I have decided is the only thing that is evidence."

In case I haven't said it lately, fuck you.

The Florida Supreme Court in 2000 decided that it was peachy-keen with the laws for recounts to continue in only four counties, despite the laws made by the Florida legislature (and the US Constitution, which I know as a leftist you have completely forgotten exists). While they were not subsequently called upon to make a ruling as to whether or not their previous ruling was legal, one assumes they would have done so had it come up.

The US Supreme Court stepped in and said their ruling was an Unconstitutional pile of shit, in much politer terms.

This time, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that it was fine to change election deadlines without consulting the legislature, and the US Supreme Court has another opportunity to tell a lower court that they don't get to ignore the US Constitution, even though leftist shitheads like you try to every chance you get.

 

[Skylar]

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

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

Remember?

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

Try again.

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

"It doesn't count unless you show THIS narrow type of situation, which I have decided is the only thing that is evidence."

In case I haven't said it lately, fuck you.

The Florida Supreme Court in 2000 decided that it was peachy-keen with the laws for recounts to continue in only four counties, despite the laws made by the Florida legislature (and the US Constitution, which I know as a leftist you have completely forgotten exists). While they were not subsequently called upon to make a ruling as to whether or not their previous ruling was legal, one assumes they would have done so had it come up.

The US Supreme Court stepped in and said their ruling was an Unconstitutional pile of shit, in much politer terms.

This time, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that it was fine to change election deadlines without consulting the legislature, and the US Supreme Court has another opportunity to tell a lower court that they don't get to ignore the US Constitution, even though leftist shitheads like you try to every chance you get.

And.....where is the case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court?

 

[otto105]

Who spied on a campaign? What wire tapped anything?

Are all your posts a fact free tour of victimhood.

Sure. This verified Chinese spy just hung around Diane Feinstein for twenty years because he needed a job.

Is that supposed to mean anything outside of the wingnut noise machine.

 

[skye]

Bless Texas!!!!! that was a masterful move my friends!

.....and now Louisiana joined Texas!

Louisiana just joined Texas in the SCOTUS Motion against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds that various changes to their voting rules or procedures – either through the courts or via executive actions – violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they did not go through the legislature

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Is that supposed to mean anything outside of the wingnut noise machine.

Not to a moderately functioning retarded man like you. Just ignore my post.
Diane Feinstein employed a Chinese spy for twenty years...nothing to see there.

 

[Toro]

Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!

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

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

www.breitbart.com

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

​

Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.​

…​

This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.​

​

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

lol

zero chance

 

[colfax_m]

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

It doesn’t mean the court has taken up the case. No devisions have been made.

 

[JLW]

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

Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going on

Lol..You haven’t a clue.

 

[colfax_m]

Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going on

It’s obvious that this is desperation on part of Trump supporters.

 

[iceberg]

Louisiana has jumped on the Texas lawsuit.

getting fun now, people.

 

[iceberg]

Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going on

It’s obvious that this is desperation on part of Trump supporters.

yet here you are again providing zero facts and just speculating your pretty little keyboard away.

cute.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

Jesus he's thick. LOL

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

I kinda feel for them, because they're going to be pilloried no matter which way they go.

On the other hand, they knew the risks of the job when they decided to pursue it.