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

[busybee01]

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.

Which is a lie. No fraud happened in Georgia.

 

[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 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.

Precedent is pretty clear, Emergencies do not suspend the constitution.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

By doing last moment alterations to their election laws Michigan, etc. has disenfranchised every other state
by putting Texas, and other like minded states, at a disadvantage.

Imagine entering a road race where, when you show up, you find out every person from the local town
has been given a four minute head start. A slight rules adjustment.


Does this seem at all troublesome to you?

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Yep, the Texas suit has solid case law behind it, so if this were a perfect world, it is a slam dunk.

The question is, will the five conservative justices have the courage to enforce the letter of the law here, acknowledge the law and then weasel out, or just toss it out without comment as so many cowardly judges have done already, except for ONE DEMOCRAT judge who had the courage to say the PA case had merit, then the hacks on the PASC yanked the case away before the honest judge could here any evidence.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

They want to invalidate all the mail in votes based on these type of administrative interpretations of the grey areas of the law that only affect a small number of ballots.

 

[Concerned American]

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.

The TX suit was brought by the TX AG--not Trump.

 

[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.

Which is a lie. No fraud happened in Georgia.

Stephen Crowder has an excellent video on the matter. You should watch it, if your nurses will allow it.

 

[busybee01]

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.

Can another state force a state to follow it's own laws?

The DA has prosecutorial discretion in charging crimes. So how can another state force them to prosecute?

Sure they can. How about pollution laws where water pollution goes into states that are downstream.

These states are directly affected by pollution. That is not true in elections. Also we are talking about federal ;laws not state laws.

 

[Circe]

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.

Yep, the Texas suit has solid case law behind it, so if this were a perfect world, it is a slam dunk.

The question is, will the five conservative justices have the courage to enforce the letter of the law here, acknowledge the law and then weasel out, or just toss it out without comment as so many cowardly judges have done already, except for ONE DEMOCRAT judge who had the courage to say the PA case had merit, then the hacks on the PASC yanked the case away before the honest judge could here any evidence.

They'll weasel out, I think.

 

[busybee01]

No one has suggested disenfranchising the states.

No, they're just suggesting disenfranchise some of the states, specifically some of the states that voted for Biden.

Top Pennsylvania Republicans pressure congressional delegation to challenge Biden’s victory

The effort stands in contrast to the reaction of Arizona’s House Speaker, who rebuked the Trump-led pressure campaign on Friday.

www.politico.com

Those states disenfranchised us with massive voter fraud which their laws facilitated.

Which is a lie. Trump's lawyers have not produced one shred of evidence.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Yeah, that's why Mass v. EPA works together with Anderson v. Celebrezze.

Anderson holds that, in a Presidential Election, "the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes
cast for the various candidates in other States.” Mass v. EPA holds that "given that procedural right" (that being the regulation procedure in that case, and Article III, Sec 2 of the U.S. Constitution in this case) "and Massachusetts’ stake in protecting its quasi-sovereign interests, the Commonwealth is entitled to special solicitude in our standing analysis."

 

[Faun]

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.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

They have not. There have been no illegal changes.

Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.

State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.

The US constitution says State legislatures set the rules for Presidential elector selection, and thus the elections. State judges can't override that.

Marty thinks that a Republican legislature can pass a law that said democrats votes don 't get counted.

RealDumb thinks that if he dodges the topic enough, it will just go away.

LOL

Texas sues over election results in battleground states Biden won

In his long-shot lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton takes aim at the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia.

www.cbsnews.com

Paxton, who is facing accusations of bribery and abuse of office, is asking the Supreme Court to extend the December 14 deadline for the states' certification of presidential electors to allow for investigations into the alleged irregularities. He also wants the court to block the use of "unlawful election results without review and ratification by" the states' legislatures.​

... too fucking funny -- now we have the party of supposed strict constitutionalists against legislating from the bench, begging the highest court in the land to ignore the Constitution and legislate from the bench just so they can hand the election to Impeached Trump after he lost it.

Ain't gonna happen, tards.

Hypocrites, can you spell, H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E ?

 

[Circe]

Precedent is pretty clear, Emergencies do not suspend the constitution.

I can't agree with that!! We're in the middle of the worst suspension of the Constitution since the Civil War and WWI, and this one is worse than any of those. Can't work, have to wear weird stuff on our heads, can't go outside, can't go anywhere, can't assemble with anyone, even family members --- and on and on. This "emergency" didn't just suspend the Constitution, they've tied a rope around it's neck, hauled it over an oak branch, and are hanging onto its feet.

I think we have to acknowledge what is actually happening, not just cite legal precedent that has nothing to do with the atrocities now going on.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

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

Probably? Seems you've already decided that "liberal shills" acted improperly or illegally. Odd isn't it that nearly three dozen appeals by the Trump Supporters have been rejected by the Federal Court System. It also seems that most of the judges have been appointed by Republican Presidents.

What is not probable are the facts that the GOP is closely acting with a seditious intent, and also close to violation US Code for inciting a riot:

18 U.S. Code § 2102 - Definitions

An not only Federal Judges and justices, but state justices and judges + AG Barr have found no fraud:

High court rejects GOP bid to halt Biden's Pennsylvania win

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republicans' last-gasp bid to reverse Pennsylvania's certification of President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the electoral battleground. The court without comment refused to call into question the certification process in Pennsylvania. Democratic Gov. Tom...

news.yahoo.com

wow, what a crazy Democultist LOL

 

[Concerned American]

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.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

They have not. There have been no illegal changes.

Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.

State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.

The US constitution says State legislatures set the rules for Presidential elector selection, and thus the elections. State judges can't override that.

Marty thinks that a Republican legislature can pass a law that said democrats votes don 't get counted.

RealDumb thinks that if he dodges the topic enough, it will just go away.

LOL

Texas sues over election results in battleground states Biden won

In his long-shot lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton takes aim at the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia.

www.cbsnews.com

​

Paxton, who is facing accusations of bribery and abuse of office, is asking the Supreme Court to extend the December 14 deadline for the states' certification of presidential electors to allow for investigations into the alleged irregularities. He also wants the court to block the use of "unlawful election results without review and ratification by" the states' legislatures.​

... too fucking funny -- now we have the party of supposed strict constitutionalists against legislating from the bench, begging the highest court in the land to ignore the Constitution and legislate from the bench just so they can hand the election to Impeached Trump after he lost it.

Ain't gonna happen, tards.

Hypocrites, can you spell, H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E ?

I don't know can you spell moron, F-A-U-N

 

[Circe]

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.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

They have not. There have been no illegal changes.

Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.

State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.

The US constitution says State legislatures set the rules for Presidential elector selection, and thus the elections. State judges can't override that.

Marty thinks that a Republican legislature can pass a law that said democrats votes don 't get counted.

RealDumb thinks that if he dodges the topic enough, it will just go away.

LOL

Texas sues over election results in battleground states Biden won

In his long-shot lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton takes aim at the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia.

www.cbsnews.com

​

Paxton, who is facing accusations of bribery and abuse of office, is asking the Supreme Court to extend the December 14 deadline for the states' certification of presidential electors to allow for investigations into the alleged irregularities. He also wants the court to block the use of "unlawful election results without review and ratification by" the states' legislatures.​

... too fucking funny -- now we have the party of supposed strict constitutionalists against legislating from the bench, begging the highest court in the land to ignore the Constitution and legislate from the bench just so they can hand the election to Impeached Trump after he lost it.

Extend the deadline.......yow. Any chance of that?

 

[bripat9643]

Texas claims the changes in the way the defendant states conducted the election did not come from those states legislatures. Isn't that the same thing as Texas Governor Abbot extending early voting without the state legislature?

If he did that, then yes it is.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Now the Democrats are fighting against the Right to Vote.
How low can they go?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

They have not. There have been no illegal changes.

Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.

State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.

The US constitution says State legislatures set the rules for Presidential elector selection, and thus the elections. State judges can't override that.

Marty thinks that a Republican legislature can pass a law that said democrats votes don 't get counted.

RealDumb thinks that if he dodges the topic enough, it will just go away.

LOL

Texas sues over election results in battleground states Biden won

In his long-shot lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton takes aim at the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia.

www.cbsnews.com

​

Paxton, who is facing accusations of bribery and abuse of office, is asking the Supreme Court to extend the December 14 deadline for the states' certification of presidential electors to allow for investigations into the alleged irregularities. He also wants the court to block the use of "unlawful election results without review and ratification by" the states' legislatures.​

... too fucking funny -- now we have the party of supposed strict constitutionalists against legislating from the bench, begging the highest court in the land to ignore the Constitution and legislate from the bench just so they can hand the election to Impeached Trump after he lost it.

Ain't gonna happen, tards.

Hypocrites, can you spell, H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E ?

I don't know can you spell moron, F-A-U-N

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Can another state force a state to follow it's own laws?

The DA has prosecutorial discretion in charging crimes. So how can another state force them to prosecute?

Sure they can. How about pollution laws where water pollution goes into states that are downstream.

These states are directly affected by pollution. That is not true in elections. Also we are talking about federal ;laws not state laws.

ROFL! In other words, you are wrong. Allowing wholesale fraud in your state cancels out the votes of people in every other state.