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

[busybee01]

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.

These states followed the relevent laws in their state.

 

[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 ?

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

Thanks for letting me know I get under your skin.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

These states followed the relevent laws in their state.

No they didn't, turd.

 

[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.

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

No wholesale fraud happened.

That is your level of intelligence. Every judge has stated that Trump has provided no evidence.

Wrong.

You are wrong as usual.

 

[Rogue AI]

Nope, Texas is fighting to uphold the Constitution, that some ineligible votes would be collateral damage is incidental.

You think every voter in these four states was ineligible?

That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day.

Of course not. Especially since I live in one of those states. The matter at hand is absentee ballots. Nobody has challenged the validity of in person voting.

 

[Dick Foster]

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.

States rights DO NOT include the right to defraud the other states, not by election rigging or any other method.

 

[busybee01]

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.

These states followed the relevent laws in their state.

No they didn't, turd.

Yes they did.

 

[busybee01]

Nope, Texas is fighting to uphold the Constitution, that some ineligible votes would be collateral damage is incidental.

You think every voter in these four states was ineligible?

That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day.

Of course not. Especially since I live in one of those states. The matter at hand is absentee ballots. Nobody has challenged the validity of in person voting.

These states are beating a dead horse.

 

[Faun]

Now the Democrats are fighting against the Right to Vote.

Who is fighting against the right to vote?

Texas is literally trying to get SCOTUS to take away the votes of everyone in these four states.

Who needs those 20 million votes?

 

[busybee01]

Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!

Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules

Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.

www.breitbart.com

Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:​

​

Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.​

…​

This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.​

​

Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.​

Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.

Thanks, where did you earn your law degree? A box of Coco Puffs?

You have no clue what law is.

 

[mascale]

Most likely the Elections Clause will be applied, with references to Federalist 59 noted--except that it will be hard to get all that into the one sentence denial of the complaint--maybe Thursday night, this week.
_______________________
“Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm,” Tuesday night.
____________________________

1. Texas alleges that it has standing among all 50 states, most of which are not getting involved: To create the original filing.
2. The Elections Clause, per Federalist 59, is precisely apprehensive of what Texas is doing.
3. States have election codes and manuals, able to be locally reviewed well in advance of Election Day. California has reams of code specifically devoted just to Emergency Procedures--voting from out of county, an example.
4. Nothing is shown in the filing about such codes and manuals, or local court interpretations.
5. Those are local matters.
6. Alleging, "This happened" is not evidence prima facie because "That was done."
7. Matters unforeseen happen. Ground events are not cited.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(People Pray for this to happen: Matt 25: 14-30!)

 

[busybee01]

The Texas matter has no litigated findings on which to rely.

"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!)

Actually there is, Bush v. Gore is one precedent that said votes within a State can not be treated differently. GA treated mail in ballots differently than in person voting. Some counties in PA allowed voters to fix their defective ballots, while others didn't. That's just two of the due process arguments being made by TX.

.

There is a huge difference. Voters who vote in person can seek assistance in voting. That may not be ne cessarily true with mail in ballots. No equal protection case here.

 

[busybee01]

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.

Fucking moron, Pennsylvania used mail-in ballots in their primary election in accordance with the new law. Republicans had their opportunity then to challenge the constitutionality of that law if it were really a problem for them. They don't get to sit on that position and wait to see if they win or lose an election, and then attempt to disenfranchise 2.6 million voters because they lost the election over a law that was constitutional when the election was held and the voters followed the law.

So if you don't contest the constitutionality of some law by some arbitrary deadline that Dims have defined, then you can never contest it? What about Plessy vs. Fergusen? How long after the segregation laws were passed was that law contested?

You're a fucking idiot.

Dim fraud has disenfranchised 74 million voters, douchebag.

You are trying to disenfranchise 80 million voters.

 

[busybee01]

That is a bad argument to attempt. A monority of voters elected this president in 2016. Were voters in the more populous states disenfranchised?

Every voter in every election whose candidate does not win is "disenfranchised" if that's how you wish to
look at things. The question is was an election fairly contested? Or not?

We know for absolutely certain the 2020 presidential election was as dirty and corrupt as can be.
And the aftermath has been corrupt too. Appeals to lower and state courts have been summarily rejected
out of hand.
The solution when lower courts refuse to honestly deal with things (ignoring Dominion and ballot fraud) is to take it to the Supreme Court.

Tbhe federal courts have rejected them as well. That includes judges appointed by Trump.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

The question is whether other states can force a state to follow FEDERAL law.

That pesky fucking Constitution. Keeps getting in your way, doesn't it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Fucking moron, Pennsylvania used mail-in ballots in their primary election in accordance with the new law. Republicans had their opportunity then to challenge the constitutionality of that law if it were really a problem for them. They don't get to sit on that position and wait to see if they win or lose an election, and then attempt to disenfranchise 2.6 million voters because they lost the election over a law that was constitutional when the election was held and the voters followed the law.

So if you don't contest the constitutionality of some law by some arbitrary deadline that Dims have defined, then you can never contest it? What about Plessy vs. Fergusen? How long after the segregation laws were passed was that law contested?

You're a fucking idiot.

Dim fraud has disenfranchised 74 million voters, douchebag.

You are trying to disenfranchise 80 million voters.

No, YOU are, by insisting that the election be decided by tainted election procedures.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Not true, moron.

One state can't interpret the constitution of another state.

The Supreme Court can.

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.

The state courts didn't write the state Constitutions or the state election laws, and they sure as shit didn't write the US Constitution. Please stop talking out of your ass, because the methane smell is polluting the board.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

You said the same thing about gay marriage somehow debasing heterosexual marriage.

You were wrong about that too.

No, he wasn't.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

That is a bad argument to attempt. A monority of voters elected this president in 2016. Were voters in the more populous states disenfranchised?

Every voter in every election whose candidate does not win is "disenfranchised" if that's how you wish to
look at things. The question is was an election fairly contested? Or not?

We know for absolutely certain the 2020 presidential election was as dirty and corrupt as can be.
And the aftermath has been corrupt too. Appeals to lower and state courts have been summarily rejected
out of hand.
The solution when lower courts refuse to honestly deal with things (ignoring Dominion and ballot fraud) is to take it to the Supreme Court.

Tbhe federal courts have rejected them as well. That includes judges appointed by Trump.

Yes. The Supreme Court has done it's job when the lower state and federal courts refused to do theirs
because they know no one is going to hold them accountable.

Disgusting but it's just what we saw in Gore v Bush in 2000. In the second Trump term I would like to see
some accountability from these petty autocrats in robes.

Anyone who can say he sees no evidence of fraud after being informed about Dominion needs to be
removed from office and lose any pensions or remunerations due.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

You said the same thing about gay marriage somehow debasing heterosexual marriage.

You were wrong about that too.

I doubt I ever used the word "debased." I wasn't wrong about gay marriage. It's a joke.

But then, so are a lot of heterosexual marriages these days.