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

[BULLDOG]

This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.

These states broke their own laws.

Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?

Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.

Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.

Please show me where these 4 states did that.

All you gotta do.

Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.

All you gotta do.

Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.

Now show me where these states followed their process.

You can't, can you?

Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.

Ahiw me one case where Trump won.

You can’t, can you?

This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.

The Texas lawsuit is trash. It will dismissed out of hand.

Coming from a dipwad who's already proven that he knows nothing whatsoever about the Texas lawsuit, this means . . . exactly as much as every other post you make, which is nothing.

If Texas wins the case, will all states who made voting rules changes without their legislature doing it have their EC votes voided, or just the ones listed in the case?

I think this case would just cover the listed defendants, however any state that violated the constitution in this regard would be in jeopardy after the precedent was set.

Texas extended early voting without any input from the legislature. There goes those 38 EC votes for Trump down the drain. Changes were made the same way across the country.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Well of course - Texas has every right to change election laws in all 57 states because, you know ... TEXAS!
Good lord, when will Republicans stop embarrassing themselves?

Come on the answer to that last question is, NEVER!!!!

MAGA

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Thus, the State of Texas has an interest in protecting its voters from such impact, especially one that violates the Electors Clause and very recent precedent surrounding its interpretation.

Fascinating. What impact did any of these states have on Texas's voters that it is seeking to protect them from?

You don't actually understand this argument, do you?

You do nothing but talk in circles.

Go see the fucking HOLDING stating that it does impact Texas and its voters. I fucking gave you the citation.

Quit making shit up that is contrary to precedent.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

In this situation, the analogy is good enough.

States can't fuck up the way they handle the EC because, as the SCOTUS has ALREADY DECIDED, that has an impact on the voters in other states. THUS, Texas can show harm. THUS, Texas has fucking standing.

That is the material point, which you are anxious to ignore.

 

[OKTexas]

The case in the OP has nothing to do with other cases, of course you know that, but deflection seems to be all you have. STFU.

Well hi, Poser! I see your dumb ass is still Trolling me again over your stupid ploy I didn't fall for. You're the fucking dumbass who posted your DD 214 as a challenge to prove you heap big brave warrior & so you could display like a fucking peacock, an award you received. That is the epitome of a poser and just one of many reasons why I use that moniker to peg your dumb ass for so long. All along I refused to display my DD 214, and instead posted my VA Benefits letter as proof of MY SEA/Nam deployments as agreed. And your dumb ass dismissed that as non-proof because it wasn't a DD 214...fucking bullshitter!

As far as the single item on topic, ALL of the cases have a common thread, notwithstanding your bullshit of trying to decouple them, one from another; Trump & Co. trying to put their collective thumbs on the scale. Tough shit Tex...you don't want to see it because you're just a fucking puppet. So piss off now Lil' Tex. You're the one making a fool of himself with your childish behavior in your 70's. TaTa Poser!

Well punk, first of all I'm not in my 70s and there in nothing in the TX suit that alleges any fraud. It simply points out States not following their own State laws, violations of due process and violations of the Constitution.

If you didn't spend so much time lying and deflecting you might be able to keep up. LMAO

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

right or wrong, this is a valid way to address your concerns of our system. given other methods i've seen taking place, i far prefer the court method and am fine with allowing time w/o demonizing those pursuing this option we all have available to us.

Given what judges have said, and how Guiliani had to back down from claiming fraud, it is beginning to look like it is.

Giuliani has not backed down from anything, girly girl.

Yes, he did. The judges are point-blank asking these lawyers including Rudy if they are claiming fraud.
ALL of them have to say no because if an officer of the court lies to a judge, he's disbarred.

Show me where this has happened. I tried to find it but nothing. Got a link?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The states are not hurt by how the other states run their elections. They have no standing.

Yes, they are. I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.

You can apply equal protection when your state has been given affirmative action.

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.

Oh, spare us with the false equivalency bullshit. "We don't have to follow the law, because we don't have the pure mob rule democracy that we want!!!"

The operative part of the phrase "equal protection under the law" is actually "UNDER THE LAW". The law - in this case, the US Constitution - says that election laws are set by state legislatures. Not by the governor, not by the state Supreme Court, not by the Secretary of State. If a state's election was being governed by arbitrary decisions made by those other people, rather than by the laws passed by the state legislature, then that is a violation of the US Constitution.

And there's no amount of whining that "Well, the whole election is not fair, because it isn't done the way I think it should be!!!" that's going to change that fact, or be worth a taco fart in a wind tunnel to anyone here.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Actually, states can't make changes to their voting rules AT ALL without involving their legislatures.

 

[Concerned American]

This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.

These states broke their own laws.

Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?

Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.

Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.

Please show me where these 4 states did that.

All you gotta do.

Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.

All you gotta do.

Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.

Now show me where these states followed their process.

You can't, can you?

Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.

Ahiw me one case where Trump won.

You can’t, can you?

This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.

The Texas lawsuit is trash. It will dismissed out of hand.

Coming from a dipwad who's already proven that he knows nothing whatsoever about the Texas lawsuit, this means . . . exactly as much as every other post you make, which is nothing.

If Texas wins the case, will all states who made voting rules changes without their legislature doing it have their EC votes voided, or just the ones listed in the case?

I think this case would just cover the listed defendants, however any state that violated the constitution in this regard would be in jeopardy after the precedent was set.

Texas extended early voting without any input from the legislature. There goes those 38 EC votes for Trump down the drain. Changes were made the same way across the country.

That's wonderful, so the election was put in jeopardy and the vote goes to the house where each state gets one vote and since there are more republican controlled states than democrat, Trump should be inaugurated Jan. 20. Just keeps getting better.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Oh please we have just had several years of Dems accusing every one who doesn't share their agenda with every crime misdemeanor and/or perversion they can think of without the first shred of evidence. Best expect the shoe to be on the other foot if Biden should actually manage to sleeze his way into office and for impeachment proceedings to commence immediately. Besides who are you to claim the evidence is invalid before it is even all presented? If those States have accepted illegal votes or deliberately encouraged illegal voting in a Federal election they have committed a crime against the Nation.

Wow. So because you feel wronged over something completely different that affects this election how?

That fails basic logic. Sorry your feewings were hewt snowflake but like...tough shit. You don't get to overturn an election based on your feelings.

As far as evidence...it's been over a month and about 60 court cases...when were you planning on presenting this "evidence"?

Nobody is trying to "overturn" an election. A great many people believe that corrupt officials manipulated the count to put who they wanted in office rather than the candidate that actually got the most votes. Why would anyone who wants a fair and honest election mind people checking to make sure that it was? All this resistance only convinces people you have something to hide. It would be a very bad idea to go on with as many Americans as is current thinking that what is being attempted is a coup rather than an election.

How many times do you need to check?

How many recounts are needed?

The answer is as many as you need until Trump is selected no matter if the evidence does not support the claim Trump lost because of fraud!

Hell courts have rejected every case except one and that one was overturned...

So how many times must you be told Trump lost?

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Actually, states can't make changes to their voting rules AT ALL without involving their legislatures.

Texas governor, republican Greg Abbot, extended early voting dates with no support or input from the legislature.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Actually, states can't make changes to their voting rules AT ALL without involving their legislatures.

Not legally, anyway.

 

[Ben Thomson]

Now, thanks to the Orange Jesus every loser from now on is going to start screaming fraud and suing to get elections overturned. Thanks a lot for nothing Trump.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I will never understand why leftists think, "If I sound like I'm just too stupid to understand, it will be a brilliant debate tactic!"

The Constitution primarily in question here is the US Constitution. Maybe you've heard of it. It states, very clearly, that state election law is set by the state legislature, not by any other state government entity. To the extent that state government entities may have violated their own state Constitution in regards to election law, that would also be a violation of the US Constitution.

For the record, though, the state supreme court does not "control" the state constitution, either. That's also controlled by the state legislatures, and the people they represent.

 

[BULLDOG]

This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.

These states broke their own laws.

Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?

Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.

Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.

Please show me where these 4 states did that.

All you gotta do.

Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.

All you gotta do.

Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.

Now show me where these states followed their process.

You can't, can you?

Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.

Ahiw me one case where Trump won.

You can’t, can you?

This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.

The Texas lawsuit is trash. It will dismissed out of hand.

Coming from a dipwad who's already proven that he knows nothing whatsoever about the Texas lawsuit, this means . . . exactly as much as every other post you make, which is nothing.

If Texas wins the case, will all states who made voting rules changes without their legislature doing it have their EC votes voided, or just the ones listed in the case?

I think this case would just cover the listed defendants, however any state that violated the constitution in this regard would be in jeopardy after the precedent was set.

Texas extended early voting without any input from the legislature. There goes those 38 EC votes for Trump down the drain. Changes were made the same way across the country.

That's wonderful, so the election was put in jeopardy and the vote goes to the house where each state gets one vote and since there are more republican controlled states than democrat, Trump should be inaugurated Jan. 20. Just keeps getting better.

You be sure to hold your breath until that happens.

 

[Circe]

Analysis-Texas tries to overturn the U.S. election result. Can it succeed? | Reuters

Texas asked the justices to immediately block the four states from using the voting results to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College, essentially erasing the will of millions of voters.

Biden has amassed 306 electoral votes - exceeding the necessary 270 - compared to Trump’s 232 in the state-by-state Electoral College that determines the election’s outcome. The four states contribute a combined 62 electoral votes to Biden’s total. Texas asked the justices to delay the Dec. 14 date for Electoral College votes to be cast, a date set by law in 1887.
*******************************************************************************************************

Very interesting to me. So if they subtract 62 electoral votes from Biden's 306, that leaves him 234 votes, not the 270 he has to have. Of course, then Trump would have 232 still, which is less, but then what, legally? Would the one who got the most win (still Biden)? Or would it be thrown into the House of Representatives because no one got 270? In which case Trump would win, presumably.

I thought they'd try for different states of electors for several states, which would throw the election into the House, as it did before, 1877. And they did try: that was the Georgia effort, which failed a couple days ago, when the governor of Georgia refused.

I suppose this all goes nowhere, except that it might well educate both parties not to appease when there are voting cheats. And there are, too often. If this ended by finally getting voter IDs, that would be great. If it ends by states making a lot more sure to cut out voting fraud and illegals voting, that would be really great.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Nope. So long as it was the state legislature making the decision, it's not a violation of the US Constitution at all.

"Equal protection" doesn't mean everyone gets the same outcome; it means everyone plays by the same rules during the game.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.

These states broke their own laws.

Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?

Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.

Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.

Please show me where these 4 states did that.

All you gotta do.

And, the complaint establishes through precedent in Anderson v. Celebrezze and in Mass. v. EPA that Texas has standing to bring the action against other states as original actions in the SCOTUS.

So far, all these internet, night-shift lawyers have failed to rebut that very sound LEGAL argument supporting Texas having standing, which these night-shift internet lawyers originally asserted but have suddenly abandoned for some reason.

 

[busybee01]

Missouri is now in as well.

So that would now be Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Missouri filing suit against the four Dumbass states.

Missouri joins 'fight' alongside Texas to challenge election before Supreme Court

Schmitt says he'll help 'lead the effort' in support of Texas' filing

www.foxnews.com

The Dumbass states are the ones filing this idiotic suit that will be thrown out just like the rest of them.

 

[iceberg]

This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.

These states broke their own laws.

Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?

Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.

Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.

Please show me where these 4 states did that.

All you gotta do.

And, the complaint establishes through precedent in Anderson v. Celebrezze and in Mass. v. EPA that Texas has standing to bring the action against other states as original actions in the SCOTUS.

So far, all these internet, night-shift lawyers have failed to rebut that very sound LEGAL argument supporting Texas having standing, which these night-shift internet lawyers originally asserted but have suddenly abandoned for some reason.

this is their right to follow through. let them do it.