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

[Fort Fun Indiana]

yet the SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case.

They have to hear it to dismiss it.

 

[Dr Grump]

Actually, the Texas suit does say that, but you wouldn't know, since you've been pulling ASSumptions about what their suit out of your anus from the start.

I'm going to do you a favor and actually show you how ignorant you're being . . . and do everyone else a favor by showing them it's actually stupidity, since you won't read this any more than you read the OP article.

The US Constitution - you may have heard of it; that's the document your thought masters keep telling you is toilet paper - states very clearly that election law must be passed by the state legislators. It cannot be decided or changed by anyone else. Not the governor, not the Secretary of State, not the election boards, and not the state Supreme Court.

States such as Pennsylvania had their election laws changed by people who weren't the state legislature.

Here is the contention of the state of Texas:

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

Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards. For presidential elections, each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution,” Paxton said in a statement. “The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution.

Which answers the questions of both standing and harm.

And now you know that every "point" you've made based on what you ASSumed was happening was so much flatulence.

You're welcome.

Almost as dumb as your post I reckon. Cecille proves again she is not only dumb as a post, but one wonders where she gets her arrogance from. I've seen 1000 year old mummies showing more signs of intelligence.

Legal experts label latest US election case the ‘dumbest’ they’ve ever seen

Legal experts have shredded an audacious new lawsuit challenging the results of America’s presidential election in four swing states, calling it the “craziest” and “dumbest” case of the entire post-election period.

www.news.com.au

Snip:
Legal experts have shredded an audacious new lawsuit challenging the results of America’s presidential election in four swing states, calling it the “craziest” and “dumbest” case of the entire post-election period.
Ultimately, he wants the Supreme Court to order that each state ignore its popular vote and choose its electors via the state legislature instead.
Incidentally, all four state legislatures are controlled by the Republican Party.

He noted that Texas’s Solictor General Kyle Hawkins, whose job it is to supervise and conduct the state’s litigation in the Supreme Court, had not put his name on the lawsuit, surmising that Mr Hawkins “surely would not sign this garbage”.

“Calling this garbage might be generous,” he said.

Eugene Mazo from the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law told Law & Crime Mr Paxton’s lawsuit was the “craziest case” of the post-election period.
“This is the dumbest case any lawyer has ever seen, and the Supreme Court won’t touch it. Really, this is the craziest case of them all. Unbelievable,” Prof Mazo said.
“It’s just unbelievable to any sane, normal person who understands the structure of our constitutional system and how it functions.”

Personally, I think the Texas AG is angling for a pre-emptive pardon

For?

 

[Skylar]

My favorite cult argument is "Oh, Orange Jesus appointed three Justices, so they'll rule is in his favor."

rofl

Its a deeply corrupt argument. As if the justices are more loyal to Trump personally for appoint them......then to the law or the constitution.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Texas is ......

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

There is a solid reason for that....

 

[meaner gene]

SCOTUS won't touch this with a 10-foot pole! Not even Trump's appointees are this crazy and evil. NO STANDING.

U.S. Code dictates that electors shall meet and vote on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December of presidential election years.

The supreme court would have to decide the case before December 14th, at which point it becomes moot.

Not counting weekends, that gives them 3 work days to get 'er done.

 

[Skylar]

Actually, the Texas suit does say that, but you wouldn't know, since you've been pulling ASSumptions about what their suit out of your anus from the start.

I'm going to do you a favor and actually show you how ignorant you're being . . . and do everyone else a favor by showing them it's actually stupidity, since you won't read this any more than you read the OP article.

The US Constitution - you may have heard of it; that's the document your thought masters keep telling you is toilet paper - states very clearly that election law must be passed by the state legislators. It cannot be decided or changed by anyone else. Not the governor, not the Secretary of State, not the election boards, and not the state Supreme Court.

States such as Pennsylvania had their election laws changed by people who weren't the state legislature.

Here is the contention of the state of Texas:

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

Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards. For presidential elections, each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution,” Paxton said in a statement. “The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution.

Which answers the questions of both standing and harm.

And now you know that every "point" you've made based on what you ASSumed was happening was so much flatulence.

You're welcome.

Almost as dumb as your post I reckon. Cecille proves again she is not only dumb as a post, but one wonders where she gets her arrogance from. I've seen 1000 year old mummies showing more signs of intelligence.

Legal experts label latest US election case the ‘dumbest’ they’ve ever seen

Legal experts have shredded an audacious new lawsuit challenging the results of America’s presidential election in four swing states, calling it the “craziest” and “dumbest” case of the entire post-election period.

www.news.com.au

Snip:
Legal experts have shredded an audacious new lawsuit challenging the results of America’s presidential election in four swing states, calling it the “craziest” and “dumbest” case of the entire post-election period.
Ultimately, he wants the Supreme Court to order that each state ignore its popular vote and choose its electors via the state legislature instead.
Incidentally, all four state legislatures are controlled by the Republican Party.

He noted that Texas’s Solictor General Kyle Hawkins, whose job it is to supervise and conduct the state’s litigation in the Supreme Court, had not put his name on the lawsuit, surmising that Mr Hawkins “surely would not sign this garbage”.

“Calling this garbage might be generous,” he said.

Eugene Mazo from the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law told Law & Crime Mr Paxton’s lawsuit was the “craziest case” of the post-election period.
“This is the dumbest case any lawyer has ever seen, and the Supreme Court won’t touch it. Really, this is the craziest case of them all. Unbelievable,” Prof Mazo said.
“It’s just unbelievable to any sane, normal person who understands the structure of our constitutional system and how it functions.”

Personally, I think the Texas AG is angling for a pre-emptive pardon

For?

FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says

The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.

A little bit of political theater, a frivolous lawsuit and a pardon.....and all of Ken Paxton's legal troubles disappear.

 

[Thunk]

SEVEN states have now joined Texas lawsuit, arguing that the Equal Protection Clause has been violated in this election from state-to-state.

@Louisiana
, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota.

 

[AceRothstein]

My favorite cult argument is "Oh, Orange Jesus appointed three Justices, so they'll rule is in his favor."

rofl

The Trump cult thinks everyone else is as partisan as they are.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

Thats why Dimbocraps let them vote, lol.

 

[Thunk]

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

.....and now Louisiana joined Texas!

SEVEN states have now joined Texas lawsuit, arguing that the Equal Protection Clause has been violated in this election from state-to-state.

@Louisiana
, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota.

 

[meaner gene]

If SCOTUS does not take up this case, it would be like two people suing each other in civil court and the court decides to not accept the case.

Actually it would be like like asking the court to take one of the most important cases in their history, and have answers, briefs and oral arguments completed in three days, or the entire case becomes moot.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

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

Please tell me you are not seriously asking aliberal to think and question their ideology now?

roflmao

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

 

[Roudy]

As much as I'd like to see another Trump term...At this point I just don't see any court overturning hundreds of thousands if not millions of votes. Unless the evidence is irrefutable and compelling.

On another note, if the republicans are able to hold at least one seat in Georgia, then that is the best thing that could happen to this country, if not, the worst, we will not recognize this country in six months.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

Is that really your summation of the case?

OMG, you are as stupid as Skylar.

You and he and JoeBeoch should be sterilized for the sake of humanity.

 

[Skylar]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

 

[JimBowie1958]

States such as Pennsylvania had their election laws changed by people who weren't the state legislature.

Actually, PA is the only state of the four where the legislature did change the law, but their STATE CONSTITUTION was violated that specified how the mail-in vote was to be counted, and the government of PA simply ignored their own state Constitution.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This lawsuit is, if nothing else, a warning shot across the bow.
Texas will lead a Constitutional Convention...which could result in Independence.

Freedom loving Americans have been watching the Globalists and Marxists take over this country for the last 40 years and felt dispair that no one would do anything about it.

That is until TRUMP came along and reversed it.

Now stupid ass Dimbocraps and Globalist Neocons think that they can simply cheat and steal it back?

No fucking way, morons.

We the People will do EVERYTHING we can up to and including secession, revolt and civil war to prevent this disgrace of a piece of shyte from ever becoming President.

END OF STORY.

Joe Beijing Biden was NOT elected in an honest election; TRUMP was re-elected, and he will have a second term or we will have civil war.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Are you really that stupid?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm glad you started this thread, Iceberg.

Was this thread merged?