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

[colfax_m]

They didn't follow their "constitutional process," numskull.

Says who?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

There was no fraud that affected the results of the election.

The Texas etc lawsuit makes no mention of fraud?

Fraud is like what happened in Georgia, when witnesses were sent home due to a fake emergency
and then trays and trays of fresh new mail in ballots (the mail hidden under that table) were brought in to be filled in by remaining workers.
Stephen Crowder has an excellent video on the matter.

 

[Pete7469]

oh.

it's you again.

i farted.

bye.

I almost snarfed my breakfast beer reading that funny shit.

She really is a stupid fucking bitch.

 

[postman]

You have a state which gets 1.2 EC votes for every million citizens, arguing equal protection with a state which gets 1.8 EC votes for every million citizens.

You can't claim the Constitution is unconstitutional, moron.

But you can't look to the constitution that grants one state affirmative action, to apply equal protection in a manner that protects the affirmative action.

Equal protection means equal. In order to make each state equal, it has to remove the affirmative action to do so.

 

[colfax_m]

Because the EC is, in essence, States voting for the POTUS and VP, one State is affected by another's failure to follow the proper process, just like an individual voter is affected when another votes illegally.

This is a bullshit analogy. You're arguing about how an elector is chosen, not whether the elector has a right to cast a vote at all. When someone votes illegally, they are casting a vote they should not be allowed to cast. No one is saying that the electors can't cast votes, you're just trying to tell them they can't vote for someone you don't like.

 

[postman]

The Texas etc lawsuit makes no mention of fraud?

There most certainly was. That has been demonstrated over and over again.

Maybe demonstrated on the court house steps, where their 1st amendment rights allow they to say anything. , But never demonstrated inside a court of law, where those making the claim are subject to penalty of perjury.

 

[postman]

They didn't follow their "constitutional process," numskull.

Their constitution process is controlled by the courts of their state. Not by the courts of another state.

 

[iceberg]

this coming from someone who can't point out how these states followed their own constitutional laws.

check mate son. tired of this ball of yarn in front of the kitty game with you. you failed miserably to state a single fact around the case, just spout shit and keep diverting.

as usual.

You're putting the cart in front of the horse. We can worry about the merits of the case after we demonstrate that the case is able to be brought at all.

And once again you simply can't say that these, states followed their own laws.

Pathetic.

 

[postman]

The Electors Clause requires States to appoint their electors pursuant to state LEGISLATIVE action. If a State fails to do so via its legislature, that is a violation of the EC. Because the EC is, in essence, States voting for the POTUS and VP, one State is affected by another's failure to follow the proper process, just like an individual voter is affected when another votes illegally.

Wrong again. In the very first presidential election, states chose their own unique methods of choosing electors, including not choosing them at all.

If there was an equal protection violation, that certainly would have been one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 guys have been claiming every new court case is going to be "the one" for a month now. A month later Trump and his allies have lost 50 cases. This will just be another loss.

You can smell the qui

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

Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
way to victory. The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.

And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
slitting their own wrists.

I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it. I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point. I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case. I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes loyalty to Trump or the Republican party by any justice.....rather than loyalty to the law and the Constitution.

As the court rejecting Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v Pennsylvania, et al. just this morning elegantly demonstrated, you're likely going to be very disappointed.

A "problem" with the reasoning that exists only in the mind of a leftist "I would behave this way, so I assume everyone would" dipshit bothers me not at all.

Hold your breath waiting for me to defend something that you only imagine I said.

You get that this is the longest of long shots, yes? That the odds of this effecting the outcome of the election is roughly the number that comes just after zero?

You get that "Only do it if you get something out of it" is a leftist philosophy? Conservatives are more about doing things because it's the right thing to do.

The saying is, "All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." You wouldn't know about that, being neither good nor a man.

 

[BlindBoo]

Republican controlled legislature passed the bill.

So what?

Btw in MI it was the people who voted for Mail in ballots in 2018. By referendum. A power delegated to them, by guess who......

Again, so what? The bottom line is states can't make changes to their voting rules leading up to
an election without involving their legislatures.

Republican controlled legislature passed the bill.

So what?

Btw in MI it was the people who voted for Mail in ballots in 2018. By referendum. A power delegated to them, by guess who......

Again, so what? The bottom line is states can't make changes to their voting rules leading up to
an election without involving their legislatures.

The Court would need to switch to an extremely narrow interpretation, in the middle of an election. It's s Hail Mary, but sometimes they score. I mean the SC is human and they make bad decisions. Once they ruled that some people were owned property, like farm animals. So anything is possible.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

"The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures.

The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials. "

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
way to victory. The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.

And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
slitting their own wrists.

I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it. I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point. I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case. I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes loyalty to Trump or the Republican party by any justice.....rather than loyalty to the law and the Constitution.

As the court rejecting Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v Pennsylvania, et al. just this morning elegantly demonstrated, you're likely going to be very disappointed.

A "problem" with the reasoning that exists only in the mind of a leftist "I would behave this way, so I assume everyone would" dipshit bothers me not at all.

Hold your breath waiting for me to defend something that you only imagine I said.

this is what is so funny. the left is so hellbent on making up stupid interpretation of what you said and then attacking their known misintrepretations as if you said it.

They kinda have to create straw men to fight against. If they tried to fight against the ACTUAL arguments, they'd look as stupid as they actually are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Louisiana has joined Texas and ................now Alabama has joined too!!!!!!

Wohoooooooooo Alabama!

Missouri and Arkansas have also climbed on board now.

 

[postman]

Because the EC is, in essence, States voting for the POTUS and VP, one State is affected by another's failure to follow the proper process, just like an individual voter is affected when another votes illegally.

And what is the remedy when one state has a voting process with a 2% error rate, while another states error rate is only 1%.

Do you disenfranchise the state that can't keep their error rate below a certain percentage?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
way to victory. The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.

And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
slitting their own wrists.

I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it. I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point. I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case. I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes loyalty to Trump or the Republican party by any justice.....rather than loyalty to the law and the Constitution.

As the court rejecting Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v Pennsylvania, et al. just this morning elegantly demonstrated, you're likely going to be very disappointed.

the problem is you keep trying to tell people how they feel and you keep getting it wrong.

cute. annoying as fuck, but cute.

Your feelings I'll leave to you. The arguments being presented is what I'll critique.

Based on YOUR feelings about them. Pass.

 

[colfax_m]

And once again you simply can't say that these, states followed their own laws.

Pathetic.

I don't have to. Not unless there's a reason for SCOTUS to take up this case with someone who has nothing to do with whether any other state acted in accordance with it's own laws.

I'll tell you what, since I'm feeling generous, why don't you pick ONE example in the lawsuit to discuss. Pick your favorite. If you don't want to, I can, but I thought I'd offer you the opportunity first.

 

[bripat9643]

They didn't follow their "constitutional process," numskull.

Their constitution process is controlled by the courts of their state. Not by the courts of another state.

Not true, moron.

 

[postman]

The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials. "

This is like in Florida where their constitution delegates to the judicial branch, the jurisdiction over election disputes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.

People calling it fraud are way off base.

Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?

After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?

I do not think so.

And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?

Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?

There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.

Voters Constitutional rights were violated. That is the issue. All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction. That did not happen.

This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights. This should not be about team politics.

No it should not.

And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.

When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...

make it about team politics and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.

That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.

Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.

I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.

Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.

What fraud?

There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.

Texas is saying the States in question violated the rules. This led to the increased chance of fraud.

There is no hard evidence YET, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence you ignore. You act like the people who did it wouldn't try to hide it.

I don't believe Texas has to prove any fraud. I don't think their case even mentions fraud. All they have to prove is that 1) the legislatures of those states passed clear and specific election laws, 2) various state government entities who are NOT the legislature decided to change those rules without consulting the state legislature, 3) the US Constitution disallows for such behavior, and 4) the people of the state of Texas (and now Louisiana and Alabama) are substantially harmed by the behavior.

The 3rd point of contention made by Texas are the 'irregularities' that call into question the 'integrity' of the ballots.

Irregularities are not fraud, shitforbrains. The illegal changes to the election laws WERE the irregularities.

Keep trying.

 

[iceberg]

And once again you simply can't say that these, states followed their own laws.

Pathetic.

I don't have to. Not unless there's a reason for SCOTUS to take up this case with someone who has nothing to do with whether any other state acted in accordance with it's own laws.

I'll tell you what, since I'm feeling generous, why don't you pick ONE example in the lawsuit to discuss. Pick your favorite. If you don't want to, I can, but I thought I'd offer you the opportunity first.

Great.

Did the states bypass their own constitution and laws to change voting laws?