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

[iceberg]

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.

ask him to answer a yes|no question.

like putting a quarter in a vibrating bed. he won't shut off for at least 2 minutes.

 

[Circe]

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.

You think Texas has standing? I just read an impassioned piece somewhere saying, no it doesn't, either!! I see what you mean, though. It all turns on standing, at least first. The USSC won't vote for certiorari, whether it will hear the case, if it doesn't think Texas has standing, but also for any other reasons it wants to use to deny hearing it.

It would surprise me a whole lot if the Supreme Court hears this case. And if it does, that it votes in favor of Trump. And I say that as a Trump supporter. I just don't think they will. Surprise me ----

 

[busybee01]

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.

The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the States have found no violation of their own rules.

Texas lacks standing to challenge the internal rules of another State.

The rules are supposed to come from the Legislatures as per the US Constitution, not the Executive or the Judicial.

State courts have the right to interpret state laws. State legislatures cannot ignore state constitutions.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Yep, that leaves it to the next step in the process, when neither candidate can get the requisite 270, which provides for a Contingent Election process governed by the 12 Amendment, which states:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[a]

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.[

And, in that case---1 vote per state---WHO WOULD WIN????



These sad twats don't see the end game...but even if that fails, I think there is a lot more to this than mere attempts to drive it to a one-vote-per-state outcome. This is a SERIOUS threat to the Union.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

The Supreme Court has already ordered the cheating states to respond to the Texas' suit.
They have until tomorrow, just so you know.

So has the suit been "thrown out"? No effin way.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

You think Texas has standing? I just read an impassioned piece somewhere saying, no it doesn't, either!! I see what you mean, though. It all turns on standing, at least first. The USSC won't vote for certiorari, whether it will hear the case, if it doesn't think Texas has standing, but also for any other reasons it wants to use to deny hearing it.

It would surprise me a whole lot if the Supreme Court hears this case. And if it does, that it votes in favor of Trump. And I say that as a Trump supporter. I just don't think they will. Surprise me ----

See, that's the problem with original jurisdiction. There is no vote for cert. The SCOTUS MUST hear the case when the suit is between 2 or more states.

 

[busybee01]

and what does this have to do with anything? the Texas lawsuit has been spelled out clearly, with references, sections of the states constitutions violated and how that impacted an outcomes against what their state (and now what, 9 others) voted fairly for.

did these states or did they not follow their own constitutional process to change how people voted in this election?

a YES | NO question doesn't contain this many excuses.

It has everything to do with it. Texas has no grounds to sue these states to force them to do anything. It's completely without merit.

Have you read the pleadings?

Your response indicates that you haven't, but if you have, I want to hear what legal authority you are relying on to counter that argued by Texas.

Complaint

View attachment 426963
View attachment 426964

What's your response?

Here is the problem. In Massachusetts vs EPA, the plaintiffs were able to prove that pollution from other states did directly affect them. That is not the case here. Every state has the right to regulate their state elections. None of these states have standing.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

You keep saying that, but you can't explain what that actually means.

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

You can't explain what relevance that citation has on this case.

The citation was about ballot access where a candidate sued a state for having too high of a burden to get on the ballot. It had nothing to do with one state suing another state because they didn't vote for the right person as Texas is doing.

 

[colfax_m]

The SCOTUS MUST hear the case when the suit is between 2 or more states.

Depends on what you mean by SCOTUS MUST hear it. SCOTUS is the only court which can take cases between states but it does not have to hear the case just because it's brought to them. SCOTUS may decline to take the case.

 

[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.

The Supreme Court has already ordered the cheating states to respond to the Texas' suit.
They have until tomorrow, just so you know.

So has the suit been "thrown out"? No effin way.

The Supreme Court has already thrown out one suit after each side was asked for a respomse. Trump and his supporters are the cheaters.

 

[colfax_m]

like putting a quarter in a vibrating bed. he won't shut off for at least 2 minutes.

If I had a quarter for every time you accused me of not replying to your posts when in fact I did...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

.

It does mention the potential for fraud in the voting methods adopted, and the states' legislatures' failure to properly adopt the voting methods with that high potential for fraud. But, fraud is not the key allegation. Only the failure of legislatures to properly adopt through legislation.

But, talking nuance to these mouth breathers is an exercise in frivolity, so I don't blame your for being brief.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

The Supreme Court has already ordered the cheating states to respond to the Texas' suit.
They have until tomorrow, just so you know.

So has the suit been "thrown out"? No effin way.

The Supreme Court has already thrown out one suit after each side was asked for a respomse. Trump and his supporters are the cheaters.

Man, you must have a huge ass hole, because you are pulling all sorts of stuff out of it.

 

[iceberg]

like putting a quarter in a vibrating bed. he won't shut off for at least 2 minutes.

If I had a quarter for every time you accused me of not replying to your posts when in fact I did...

if i had a quarter for every time you actually answered a direct question i'd not even have that quarter to begin with.

 

[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.

Yep, that leaves it to the next step in the process, when neither candidate can get the requisite 270, which provides for a Contingent Election process governed by the 12 Amendment, which states:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[a]

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.[

And, in that case---1 vote per state---WHO WOULD WIN????



These sad twats don't see the end game...but even if that fails, I think there is a lot more to this than mere attempts to drive it to a one-vote-per-state outcome. This is a SERIOUS threat to the Union.

Thank you very much! I didn't know where that law was. As for who would win, I got that, yeah -----------


It IS Trump forces bringing these interesting actions, not Biden. There's a hint.

As for a serious threat to the Union, such as it is, I think a coup d'etat or military takeover would be worse. All these actions have precedent, though doing both the separate slates and the Texas action at the same time ---- bold, very bold.

It was the coronavirus that sunk Trump, IMO --- he was a shoo-in otherwise. Absolutely a shoo-in. The only reason I don't feel especially bad is that this is force majeure. Herbert Hoover didn't cause the Great Depression, either, but people voted him right out of the White House because it was a catastrophe, and someone at the top will always pay for a catastrophe, fair or not. Not, in this case, but here we are.

 

[busybee01]

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

Please show me where these 4 states did that.

Here's one that went through the legislature.

Harrisburg, PA – Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with voter-friendly election reforms.

Governor Wolf Signs Election Reform Bill Including New Mail-in Voting

Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with...

www.governor.pa.gov

and that was pre-covid. what did PA do *after* covid to change their systems?

nice try but i'm not chasing your turds down the toilet. please stick to the lawsuit.

The new law passed by the Legislature is at the heart of the issues in PA. If you don't understand those you're just pissing in the wind.

"Consider the scenario in which it was used for the first time in a general election: during a public health crisis, with record voter turnout, and in a battleground state facing the ire of a president determined to undermine the voting process and spread misinformation.

“This was very much the perfect storm of the implementation of the new voting law in Pennsylvania,” said Suzanne Almeida, the former interim executive director and current counsel at the good-government group Common Cause Pennsylvania. “It was not perfect, but votes happened and they got counted and we have an outcome.”

Pandemic, partisan attacks exposed gaps in Pa.’s new mail-in voting law

While many lawmakers agree changes are needed, finding common ground in the current hyper-partisan climate might be impossible.

www.inquirer.com

The extenuating circumstances did, however, magnify gaps in a law that was supposed to make voting easier. Those holes regarding “cured” ballots and signature matching then had to be filled through guidance from the Department of State, which prompted court challenges and opened the door for some Republicans — from President Donald Trump to state and local lawmakers — to launch unsubstantiated claims that the executive and judicial branches were attempting to swing the election in favor of Democrat Joe Biden.
“Any of these areas where the secretary has had to make a call that has then been questioned by the legislature are, in my mind, faults of not having clear statutory guidance,” said Daniel Mallinson, an assistant professor of public policy and administration at Penn State Harrisburg.

If the state legislature does not make specific guidelines then the state election commission can interpret the law. If the legislature does not like the interpretation then they can try to pass a law subject to approval or veto of the Governor.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

Not legally, anyway.

Well, yeah, but we are talking about Dimbocraps ehre

 

[Rogue AI]

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 a red herring as it pertains to in person voting. Nobody has challenged that, and many states did the same. This is about absentee ballots, verification (or lack thereof), and items that do not accommodate emergency measures like social distancing. Powers granted to governors are not granted to all executive branches such as election officials unless specified by the legislature or state Constitution.

 

[Circe]

See, that's the problem with original jurisdiction. There is no vote for cert. The SCOTUS MUST hear the case when the suit is between 2 or more states.

Uh-oh. I see trouble coming.

New gal won't vote for Trump and people will get mad.

She can probably rehabilitate herself, though, if she votes conservative in other issues. Look at that awful Neil Gorsuch voting for trannies. We can't get rid of him because he's one of the only six we've got!

 

[busybee01]

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.

Do you ever read the articles? Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?

Yeah, and is was one of the things the Texas case said was an irregularity or illegal.

The SC won't take the case is my bet, or take it for some time down the road, where the people's choice of Biden is not affected.

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.

Texans voted, Texans appointed their electors. What another state does is none of their bee's wax, according to the constitution.... imo. The people of those 4 states chose Biden, by landslides in most of them....there is no ambiguity. The laws tweaked by the court rulings, truly matters naught...Biden, was chosen by their citizens to be our next president, in good faith.... they followed the election laws they were told were legal.

Your opinion isn't worth shit. So if another state approves slavery, that's none of your business? You realize that your fucking stupid, don't you?

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

The Texas etc lawsuit makes no mention of fraud?

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

It has not been demonstrated even once. Trump's lawsuits hqave been tossed over and over again by state judges and federal judges. Republican and Democrat judges. Even judges appointed by Trump.