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

[Indeependent]

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.

State legislatures include the Governor. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret state constitutions. State officials also have the right to interpret laws. If that interpretation conflicts with the legislature then the legislature can pass a propos3ed law subject to approval of the Governor.

the legislative branch includes the executive?

that's some funny assed shit right there.

I know, I know, you cam't make this shit up...

 

[busybee01]

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.

State judges have the right to interpret the state constitution. Legislatures cannot violate state constitutions.

 

[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.

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

You use your ass hole to do your thinking,

 

[iceberg]

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

.

They are providing no evidence. This is a rehash of the same arguments that have been thrown out in state and federal courts.

Do you know the case they are presenting?

It is just rehashed cow manure that has been rejected by state and federal courts. In these states, there is plenty of cow manure they can use.

I asked...Do you know the case they are presenting?
You responded...No.

Now go look up the case they are presenting; it should only take a few minutes.

we're talking about a guy that is confused by "separation of powers".

give him a few days. minimum.

 

[busybee01]

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.

Election officials can interpret the laws that are passed by the state just as federal agencies interpret laws passed by the federal government..

 

[Rogue AI]

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.

That's one of the primary issues. States already legislated the standards for absentee ballots. Election officials ignored the law in some states and allowed poll workers to correct otherwise ineligible ballots. The process is arbitrary which gives cause for an equal protection suit.

 

[busybee01]

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.

What you want6 is a judicial colup. There is no basis for overturning a election. It was 1 REPUBLICAN judge who was overruled by a higher court.

 

[mascale]

Rogue Al poster appears to have no names of officials on which to rely, photo ID's, addresses, or other usual evidence.

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

 

[iceberg]

Rogue Al poster appears to have no names of officials on which to rely, photo ID's, addresses, or other usual evidence.

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

none you'd understand anyway. he told me yesterday he ran out of crayons, elmers glue and glitter.

fraid you're on your own from here.

 

[mascale]

Per Elections Clause, and Federalist 59: Texas has no Constitutional basis to interfere in all the elections of other states.

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

 

[Rogue AI]

Rogue Al poster appears to have no names of officials on which to rely, photo ID's, addresses, or other usual evidence.

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

Do you expect me to pilfer their wallets for their IDs? What nonsense you spew.

 

[mascale]

No constitutional arrest civil liberties are supported by Rogue Al, illiterate poster--who now even claims that Rogue Al knows none of them personally.

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

 

[iceberg]

No constitutional arrest civil liberties are supported by Rogue Al, illiterate poster--who now even claims that Rogue Al knows none of them personally.

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

dude - is this like speaking in 3rd person via a 2nd party?

 

[Rogue AI]

Per Elections Clause, and Federalist 59: Texas has no Constitutional basis to interfere in all the elections of other states.

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

You overly rely on the importance of the Federalist papers. The correspondences are limited to only a handful of signatories and vary widely to the actual text of the Constitution in which this case will be judged.

 

[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.

State legislatures include the Governor. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret state constitutions. State officials also have the right to interpret laws. If that interpretation conflicts with the legislature then the legislature can pass a propos3ed law subject to approval of the Governor.

No, they don't, no more than the US Congress includes the President. The state Supreme Court has the job of APPLYING the state Constitution. Do not give me this leftist "I really hope you fall for it" bullshit about "they were just interpreting the law when they decided that the deadline was three days later." There's no interpretation involved in fucking numbers.

 

[mascale]

Iceberg poster doesn't know any of the election officials either, posted: And Rogue Al has no concept of the opinions of Scalia, Thomas, now likely Barrett and how they infer Constitutional Intent--along with Roberts and the Liberals, and the lesser known.

The Federalist Papers are Founding Famous Articles.

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

 

[Skylar]

Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.

So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.

So where is the violation?

Gee..you are so "sharp" I'm surprised you can't figure this out...not really.

Texas won't be ruling on the election violations of other states. The Supreme Court will.
If five states are allowed to pervert election law then the entire body of laws that rule and govern our
national elections are nuked and Texas has a right to protect the laws that govern them as well as every other state in the union.

And who determines if election laws of a given state were correctly implemented? The respective state courts.

Texas has no say in any of it.

In the end SCOTUS does. See Bush V Gore. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gore, SCOTUS overturned the lower court ruling.

Bush V. Gore wasn't a ruling about one state suing another. It involved the actual candidates.

Texas isn't a candidate. It isn't anyone involved in any of the laws in question. It has no standing.

 

[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.

State judges have the right to interpret the state constitution. Legislatures cannot violate state constitutions.

Horseshit. Pure, unmitigated horseshit. State judges have a right to APPLY the law. They do not have the right to say, "This deadline should be three days later than it actually says on the paper, because I think that would be nice." That is not "interpreting" anything, no matter what your math teacher said when she got tired of trying to get you to understand arithmetic.

And is your position really, "The judges can decide the state Constitution is something different than what it says, but by God, those legislatures - who actually write the Constitution - better not get any funny ideas!"?

Far be it from me to try to stop you from saying asinine things in public that make people laugh at you like the school bully who just pissed his pants; but as a little friendly advice, anytime your mouth is moving where people might hear the sounds coming out . . . it's a really bad idea.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You use your ass hole to do your thinking,

And you ARE an asshole, who does no thinking whatsoever.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Election officials can interpret the laws that are passed by the state just as federal agencies interpret laws passed by the federal government..

Again: there is no "interpretation" involved in deadlines. Dates and numbers are not fuzzy grey areas to anyone who isn't as stupid as you are, and those people shouldn't be in charge.