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

[Cecilie1200]

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.

More projection from the left.

 

[iceberg]

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.

"It's a deeply corrupt argument, this one that I have ASSumed you're making because it's the one I would make."

Too bad for you that the argument we're ACTUALLY making is that the Justices in question are loyal to law and order.

she doesn't argue, just throws out distractions.

 

[bripat9643]

It means if you smoke pot in California and get away with it, that Georgia can't arrest you for smoking pot in California.

If you get a traffic ticket in CA, and then buy insurance in Wisconsin, that ticket will show on your record.

What does that have to do with breaking the law?

You get traffic tickets for breaking the law, moron.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Then why are they in federal court, there is no federal issue, as you said, it's a matter of their state constitution. That's what state courts are for.

Because violating their state constitution is the violation of the US Constitution . . . which has only been explained 47 times on this thread that you didn't bother reading before barging in to lecture us on the topic you didn't bother to read about first.

 

[bripat9643]

Great.

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

I don't think so. Do you have any examples from the lawsuit that you think are relevant?

the argument seems to be that the state constitution has rules for "absentee ballots", and they sought to create a new class of balloting not defined in the constitution

So the state legislature created a new type of ballot, called a "mail-in" ballot, under rules the state legislature enacted.

They created it after the fact.

 

[Claudette]

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.

You do know the reason Texas is doing this, don't you? States can sue each other for a number of reasons but when this happens, states can skip the trial court and go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Slick move, Texas.

Yup and I just read that Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana Mississippi, South Carolina and South Dakota are ready to jump in on the Texas Suite.

 

[postman]

and this is what i am trying to find out in the end.

1 - what is the documented process for the state to change their elections laws?
2 - was the processes followed in order to do so?

This is where PA becomes tricky. The legislature wrote a new law, where the absentee ballot law specified in their constitution dealt with people not present in the state for the election. The new law (under a different name aka Mail-in) dealt with people present inside the state at the time of the election.

Their argument is that the new mail-in law, is functionally the same as the absentee law, and should follow the rules of the absentee law in their constitution.

 

[mascale]

More likely the Supreme Court will seek guidance in the original intent of the Constitution adopters, found in Federalist 59. What Texas Attorney General is now doing is what was specifically alarming to the Constitution adopters. The Elections Clause was specifically included in the document to prevent Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama--(possibly controlled by Vladimir Putin(?)--to gang up on the states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia--(possibly controlled by ancestries related to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison). It was recognized at that time that money and influence could happen: Even in France(?)!

So the Congress was given the elections regulating authority: And clearly as matter of National Security. Then see the referenced states attempting intervention in the other states.

Just today, it is noted that Donald John Trump, Juvenile--(the family adults are hard to tell apart)--is not too up on U. S. National Security. Instead there is a Twitter message promising unilateral "Intervention" at the Supreme Court(?). The language of warfare is unmistakably noticeable.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 59

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(For a real sniff of foreign intervention: See Deut 23: 19-20, about the gouging and screwing that Moses likely learned as kid--from Acts 7 a household art and skill of Pharaoh!)

 

[postman]

Because violating their state constitution is the violation of the US Constitution . . . which has only been explained 47 times on this thread that you didn't bother reading before barging in to lecture us on the topic you didn't bother to read about first.

Didn't you read the "faithless electors" case. The SC essentially said what a state does with their electors is their own business.

How they chose their electors is their own business.

 

[postman]

So the state legislature created a new type of ballot, called a "mail-in" ballot, under rules the state legislature enacted.

They created it after the fact.

They created it in 2019.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Those four states didn't follow the law in their state. The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature. That didn't happen.

What you have said here is untrue.

No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.

 

[iceberg]

and this is what i am trying to find out in the end.

1 - what is the documented process for the state to change their elections laws?
2 - was the processes followed in order to do so?

This is where PA becomes tricky. The legislature wrote a new law, where the absentee ballot law specified in their constitution dealt with people not present in the state for the election. The new law (under a different name aka Mail-in) dealt with people present inside the state at the time of the election.

Their argument is that the new mail-in law, is functionally the same as the absentee law, and should follow the rules of the absentee law in their constitution.

so - the law changed was around absentee ballots? well you request those, from what i understand, they just sent out ballots people could mail back unsolicited.

you can't in my mind "widen" the scope of the law by just tacking onto it again, without proper process and going through our legislature to discuss and vote on it. for the gov / elected official to simply say "yea it's fine" is a power grab to me as they are not authorized to do so.

circumventing separation of powers is bad juju to me. i think EO's do it and hated the trend of obama doing it and trump following suit. if our process are so broken we have to take individual action AND JUSTIFY IT, then we need to fix said processes ASAP.

 

[iceberg]

More likely the Supreme Court will seek guidance in the original intent of the Constitution adopters, found in Federalist 59. What Texas Attorney General is now doing is what was specifically alarming to the Constitution adopters. The Elections Clause was specifically included in the document to prevent Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama--(possibly controlled by Vladimir Putin(?)--to gang up on the states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia--(possibly controlled by ancestries related to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison). It was recognized at that time that money and influence could happen: Even in France(?)!

So the Congress was given the elections regulating authority: And clearly as matter of National Security. Then see the referenced states attempting intervention in the other states.

Just today, it is noted that Donald John Trump, Juvenile--(the family adults are hard to tell apart)--is not too up on U. S. National Security. Instead there is a Twitter message promising unilateral "Intervention" at the Supreme Court(?). The language of warfare is unmistakably noticeable.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 59

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(For a real sniff of foreign intervention: See Deut 23: 19-20, about the gouging and screwing that Moses likely learned as kid--from Acts 7 a household art and skill of Pharaoh!)

oh shut the fuck up.

controlled by putin.
and
all my guys are the founding forefathers and such...

and you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

 

[mascale]

Mostly the Texas Supreme Court Lawsuit is not getting much coverage, anywhere. Curiously, that appears to be what the Framer's Intended.

More likely the Supreme Court will seek guidance in the original intent of the Constitution adopters, found in Federalist 59. What Texas Attorney General is now doing is what was specifically alarming to the Constitution adopters. The Elections Clause was specifically included in the document to prevent Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama--(possibly controlled by Vladimir Putin(?))--to gang up on the states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia--(possibly controlled by ancestries related to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison). It was recognized at that time that money and influence could happen: Even in France(?)!

So the Congress was given the elections regulating authority: And clearly as a matter of National Security. Then see the referenced states attempting intervention in the other states.

Just today, it is noted that Donald John Trump, Juvenile--(the family adults are hard to tell apart)--is not too up on U. S. National Security. Instead there is a Twitter message promising unilateral "Intervention" at the Supreme Court(?). The language of warfare is unmistakably noticeable.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 59

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(For a real sniff of foreign intervention: See Deut 23: 19-20, about the gouging and screwing that Moses likely learned as kid--from Acts 7 a household art and skill of Pharaoh!)

 

[colfax_m]

the argument seems to be that the state constitution has rules for "absentee ballots", and they sought to create a new class of balloting not defined in the constitution

So the state legislature created a new type of ballot, called a "mail-in" ballot, under rules the state legislature enacted.

Actually that's a different case, not brought up in the Texas lawsuit.

The Texas lawsuit is claiming that legislatures have exclusive ability to decide on the manner of choosing electors, so it wouldn't make sense that they bring up a claim stating that the legislature couldn't do something to decide on the manner of choosing electors.

In a funny way, this case is arguing against the other one.

 

[mascale]

Federalist 59 was intended to prohibit what illiterate Iceberg poster clearly intends--Foreign intervention and interstate bullying as an election outcome!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(For a real sniff of foreign intervention: See Deut 23: 19-20, about the gouging and screwing that Moses likely learned as kid--from Acts 7 a household art and skill of Pharaoh!)

 

[Rogue AI]

The Supreme Court is probably spending its time looking over all the election laws liberal shills violated in the states in question.

 

[postman]

so - the law changed was around absentee ballots? well you request those, from what i understand, they just sent out ballots people could mail back unsolicited.

The Pennsylvania mail-in ballot law, still required a ballot solicitation by the voter. It just created a new type of mail-in ballot. Absentee was for those outside the state at the time of the election, or who could not get to the polls due to job, health etc. The other was for people at their residence for the election to get a mail-in ballot.

This was mail-in NOT universal aka unsolicited mail-in

 

[Billiejeens]

The supreme court gives great deference to the courts of the states. After all, who knows more about the legislative intent, than those that wrote it.

Courts don't write legislation.

Case law defines legislation.
In essence they write the regulations.

No

 

[postman]

you can't in my mind "widen" the scope of the law by just tacking onto it again, without proper process and going through our legislature to discuss and vote on it. for the gov / elected official to simply say "yea it's fine" is a power grab to me as they are not authorized to do so.

They didn't widen, the state legislature wrote a completely new law. Not bound by any previous law, and not restricted by the constitution, which only defined "absentee ballots"