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

[Jim H - VA USA]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Skylar]

The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.

And that is a GOOD thing, trust me.

All the sophisticated people I know want to live with the hillbillys when they retire.

Or, with each other as they slowly shift States Blue.

Ask Texas, Georgia and Arizona.

That's what happens when Liberals are afraid of the Blue War Zone they created and they flee to Safe States.
Of course, these Liberals are still Mentally Ill and turn the Safe State into yet another Blue War Zone.

Or they sell their homes from States with high property values for tons of money and move to States with low property values and live large.

Its a similar situation for ex-pats moving to say, Mexico.

An an example, retired Nassau County residents are making a killing by selling to some New York City folks and moving out of state.
I am sure these NYC Bleeding Hearts will turn Nassau County into a high crime area over the next few years.

People are moving from say, Marin County California or King County, Washington....with very low crime rates but spectacular home values to live in places like.....New Braunfels Texas, or Forsythe County Georgia, or Tuscon Arizona.

Where property values are much, much lower. Using the same trick that ex-pats moving to Mexico use everyday, where they can live like kings.

And help shift Red States to Blue ones. Georgia and Arizona......with Texas not far behind.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

These states broke their own laws.

Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?

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

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

Please show me where these 4 states did that.

All you gotta do.

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

All you gotta do.

Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.

Now show me where these states followed their process.

You can't, can you?

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

Ahiw me one case where Trump won.

You can’t, can you?

This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.

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

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

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

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

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

That's 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.

Please post the law or constitutional clause that makes the distinction you mention.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

There is going to be no second Trump term. Dominion is just some crazy right wing nutjob conspiracy hoax.

The dominion conspiracy is double stupid.

First, there's nothing to support it. So belief in the dominion batshit is just pure, unrefined dipshittery.

Second, its been demonstrably disproven. If Dominion voting machines were changing votes, then physical paper ballot (with the votes written right on it for the voter to review) would be wildly different than the electronic vote tallies.

Georgia hand counted the physical ballots. The hand recount of the physical ballots matched the electronic tallies with WAY more than 99% accuracy.

Obliterating this silly turd of a conspiracy.

Even worse, if there was a problem with Dominion, why did Team Trump lie about it and conflate it with Smartmatic, which actually has nothing to do with Dominion?

Because they know their followers will believe whatever they are told, they can't accept that more people wanted him gone the wanted him to stay, just as they can't understand that not everyone liked his POLICIES and think it's all about Trump bad.

What policy did you not like?

Oh, c'mon!
You know she's not that bright and is going to post, "All of them".
I doubt she knows anything specific.
I bet this post gets deleted...

 

[DrLove]

Don’t Mess with Texas!
Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures
Texas goes directly to the Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to order these swing states with voting irregularities to allow their legislatures to appoint presidential electors.​

Don't Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures | The Stream
8 Dec 2020 ~~ By Al Perrotta
~[snip]~

Just before midnight, the State of Texas threw its massive weight into the election fraud fight. Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds their ad-hoc changes to election procedures were unconstitutional. And as a result, violated the rights of Texans and those in other states that followed the constitution. Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
What’s more, Texas isn’t fiddling around with lower courts. They marched straight to the Supreme Court. And they are requesting the Supreme Court order the offending states to allow their legislatures to appoint their presidential electors.
Dodging State Legislatures Was Dodgy
Breitbart was the first major outlet with the story, and breaks down the argument the Lone Star State is making.

Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.​

In their lawsuit, Texas claims “certain officials in the Defendant States” presented the COVID pandemic “as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in balloting.” As streiff at RedState noted, “there’s no pandemic escape hatch in the constitution.”
~[snip]~
Going to the Supreme Court…a Long Shot, Perhaps
Texas approached the Supreme Court directly, Breitbart reports, “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.”
Is the Supreme Court going to hear the case? Twitchy has collected the early reaction of legal types, and the consensus seems to be it’s a long shot the Supreme Court will hear the case, let alone rule in Texas’ favor. Several commentators note that the suit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, not the state’s solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who would be the go-to person for suits like this.


Comment:
The Roberts court will either determine that it's none of Texas' business how other states do stuff or that the legistlatures were in session and aware of the changes and did not act, therefore they are implicitly the method determined by the legislature to be appropriate and so once again, buzz of Texas.
This case doesn’t require evidence, it hangs upon the law being changed illegally, before the election.
Every American voter in is being disenfranchised in this National Election by the States who were grossly negligent in their duties to conduct a free and fair election.
All States, who abided by their State Election Rules, should join with Texas and take the scoundrels to court.

Big Texas Dick slams down on the table.

Everybody else knows what's at stake:
https://tnm.me/news/tnm-news/major-announcement-texit-legislation-filed-for-next-legislative-session
This is a not-so-veiled threat.

The SCOTUS ordered a response.

The equivalent of a fly pattern at the end of the fourth quarter. You can tell from today's SCOTUS ruling that they're not going to step in this shit. I place the blame on Trump's campaign advisors, they should have seen this coming a mile away and preempted it. We had a seriously defective candidate in Joe Biden hiding in the basement..this was a concerted effort at stealing this election across many states, the Democrats had placed their foot soldiers in various Democrat run cities and states and were preparing or should I say conspiring for this fraud for over 6 months, including how to cover their tracks. You gotta hand it to them they basically carried out an "Ocean's 11" of US elections.

I think AntiFa done it!!

 

[Skylar]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' has already been adjudicated by the States themselves. The answer was a resounding 'No'.

State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.

 

[Faun]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

Which rules were changed illegally?

 

[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.

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.

NOT.

 

[bripat9643]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' has already been adjudicated by the States themselves. The answer was a resounding 'No'.

State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.

You just stated a logical impossiblity. How does one adjudicate "themselves?"

 

[Indeependent]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' has already been adjudicated by the States themselves. The answer was a resounding 'No'.

State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.

So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Governor Abbott Extends Early Voting Period For November 3rd Election

gov.texas.gov

 

[bripat9643]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

Which rules were changed illegally?

Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.

 

[Skylar]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' has already been adjudicated by the States themselves. The answer was a resounding 'No'.

State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.

So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.

I'm laughing at the audience.

 

[DrLove]

Relax everyone, Ken Paxton is just trying to get a pardon....

Trump is a child so its practically that easy to get a pardon from him.....

Pax needs a pardon - Quickly!

 

[Indeependent]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' has already been adjudicated by the States themselves. The answer was a resounding 'No'.

State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.

So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.

I'm laughing at the audience.

Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

 

[Skylar]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' has already been adjudicated by the States themselves. The answer was a resounding 'No'.

State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.

You just stated a logical impossiblity. How does one adjudicate "themselves?"

How does a State court adjudicate State laws? Using what's called 'jurisdiction' and the 'judicial power' granted by their respective state constitutions.

You see it exercised every day in State court when State laws are adjudicated. In fact, State law is the generally the only thing that State courts can adjudicate.

Remember, you have no idea what's going on or how any of this works.

 

[conserveguy877]

I don't care if this results get delayed half a month, a year, or 4 more years. There's still the legal process. In President Trump's case. Look at so much evidence to reverse these illegal results.

 

[Skylar]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' has already been adjudicated by the States themselves. The answer was a resounding 'No'.

State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.

So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.

I'm laughing at the audience.

Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.

I'm laughing at the audience.

 

[Indeependent]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' has already been adjudicated by the States themselves. The answer was a resounding 'No'.

State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.

So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.

I'm laughing at the audience.

Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.

I'm laughing at the audience.

So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

 

[Skylar]

I don't care if this results get delayed half a month, a year, or 4 more years. There's still the legal process. In President Trump's case. Look at so much evidence to reverse these illegal results.

What 'illegal results?

I don't think 'illegal' means what you think it means. Though you did get the 'results' part right. As the election is well and thoroughly over.

It has been since about November 7th.