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

[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?

All the ones that were changed, moron.

 

[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.

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.

But you are being laughed at.

 

[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.

But you are being laughed at.

Remember, the folks who disagree with me are from the same crowd that are still clinging to 'election fraud' conspiracies and gibbering batshit about 'dominion voting machines'.

So consider the source. I certainly do.

 

[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?"

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.

This is a lawsuit between states, idiot. What you're saying is that defense attorney can rule his client innocent.

 

[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.

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.

But you are being laughed at.

Remember, the folks who disagree with me are from the same crowd that are still clinging to 'election fraud' conspiracies and gibbering batshit about 'dominion voting machines'.

So consider the source. I certainly do.

You mean the people who have the facts on their side?

 

[j-mac]

Jesus. Elections are a state matter. They are governed by THAT STATES laws and adjudicated by that states court system.

One state can not sue another state over how that state runs its elections.

This is beyond silly. I mean worthy of Rudy Toot Toot silly

Wrong...There is precident

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

If you were right, which you never are, why is the Supreme Court demanding that these four states
respond back to the court tomorrow at about 1:00 pm (PST) to explain their actions and what they
were trying to do jury rigging their voting systems?
Like Jocelyn Benson (D) Secretary of State for Michigan, for instance: "Benson gave private activist organizations direct access to the state’s voter files, which should only be accessible to election clerks. She also violated a state law requiring signatures for absentee ballot requests by establishing online voter registration without statutory authority, and unilaterally decided — without legislative approval — to send absentee ballot request forms to every household in the state, without even checking to see whether the registered voters listed for each address had died or moved."

Michigan's actions give Biden voters advantages of course through illegal actions.
And that disenfranchises Texas, to a degree devaluing the individual voter in Texas.
To claim no other states are involved is just asinine but, look who is making that point.

 

[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.

Nope, nothing illegal about them.

Where does the state law of Michigan allow mail-in voting?

 

[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.

This is a lawsuit between states, idiot. What you're saying is that defense attorney can rule his client innocent.

Laughing.....I'm saying that a State court can adjudicate State laws.

Which, of course, it can. And does every day.

Texas doesn't get a say in another States laws. Its the foundational flaw of this entire pseudo-legal turd of a suit filed by Texas. Texas doesn't have standing.

 

[j-mac]

"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.

Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.

Plus, the gloating after.

Fine...I'm sure that after Biden destroys all those new businesses in Black areas, you will help pay their bills.

Biden should probably be paying some bills to you.....as he's living rent free in your head.

I have to admit that I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
You tell me.

Or....perhaps silly attempts at insults are all you have left as you abandon the topic of the thread.

You stick with your 'feelings'. I'll stick with mocking this steaming pseudo-legal turd of a lawsuit from Texas. And its intended audience.

Deal?

I deal with economic reality...every strata of America has done better under Trump than under any other President.
You're the one who claims you hate (a feeling) him and can't specify a reason.

Or....you're trying to change the topic to your 'feelings' so you can flee from the topic of the thread.

No thank you. Your feelings I'll leave to you. Pointing out the numerous holes in the legal reasoning of the Texas suits you could drive truck through I'll leave to myself.

That and mocking its intended audience a little. That's more for fun.

Please stop trying to pass the "feelings" argument over to me.
The fact that you cannot perceive the objective economic cause/effect of Trumps policies, combined with your irrational hatred of him, means you possibly only care about how you feel despite objective observation.

Uh-huh.

I have to admit that I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?

You feel your feelings. I'll stick with the topic of the thread.

So no infrastructure improvements in your town?
New sidewalks?
New hydrants?
New waste pipes?
New traffic lights?
New Stop Signed?
New water pipes?
New malls?

If not, you're local politicians are pocketing the money Trump sent them to fix up your town.
Or you could live a very small town.

Wow, you are just dripping with desperation to change the topic of the thread.

Nope. When you have something relevant to add to this thread, I'll be here.....shredding the pseudo-legal gibberish of the Texas suit. And laughing at its target audience.

Until then, enjoy feeling your feelings.

And what exactly are your credentials to label anything pseudo?

 

[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.

Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.

Plus, the gloating after.

Fine...I'm sure that after Biden destroys all those new businesses in Black areas, you will help pay their bills.

Biden should probably be paying some bills to you.....as he's living rent free in your head.

I have to admit that I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
You tell me.

Or....perhaps silly attempts at insults are all you have left as you abandon the topic of the thread.

You stick with your 'feelings'. I'll stick with mocking this steaming pseudo-legal turd of a lawsuit from Texas. And its intended audience.

Deal?

I deal with economic reality...every strata of America has done better under Trump than under any other President.
You're the one who claims you hate (a feeling) him and can't specify a reason.

Or....you're trying to change the topic to your 'feelings' so you can flee from the topic of the thread.

No thank you. Your feelings I'll leave to you. Pointing out the numerous holes in the legal reasoning of the Texas suits you could drive truck through I'll leave to myself.

That and mocking its intended audience a little. That's more for fun.

Please stop trying to pass the "feelings" argument over to me.
The fact that you cannot perceive the objective economic cause/effect of Trumps policies, combined with your irrational hatred of him, means you possibly only care about how you feel despite objective observation.

Uh-huh.

I have to admit that I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?

You feel your feelings. I'll stick with the topic of the thread.

So no infrastructure improvements in your town?
New sidewalks?
New hydrants?
New waste pipes?
New traffic lights?
New Stop Signed?
New water pipes?
New malls?

If not, you're local politicians are pocketing the money Trump sent them to fix up your town.
Or you could live a very small town.

Wow, you are just dripping with desperation to change the topic of the thread.

Nope. When you have something relevant to add to this thread, I'll be here.....shredding the pseudo-legal gibberish of the Texas suit. And laughing at its target audience.

Until then, enjoy feeling your feelings.

And what exactly are your credentials to label anything pseudo?

He hates Trump; a Liberal does not need any other credential.

 

[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?"

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.

This is a lawsuit between states, idiot. What you're saying is that defense attorney can rule his client innocent.

Laughing.....I'm saying that a State court can adjudicate State laws.

Which, of course, it can. And does every day.

Texas doesn't get a say in another States laws. Its the foundational flaw of this entire pseudo-legal turd of a suit filed by Texas. Texas doesn't have standing.

This is a lawsuit between states, moron. A state cannot adjudicate a lawsuit filed by another state.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

If you were right, which you never are, why is the Supreme Court demanding that these four states
respond back to the court tomorrow at about 1:00 pm (PST) to explain their actions and what they
were trying to do jury rigging their voting systems?
Like Jocelyn Benson (D) Secretary of State for Michigan, for instance: "Benson gave private activist organizations direct access to the state’s voter files, which should only be accessible to election clerks. She also violated a state law requiring signatures for absentee ballot requests by establishing online voter registration without statutory authority, and unilaterally decided — without legislative approval — to send absentee ballot request forms to every household in the state, without even checking to see whether the registered voters listed for each address had died or moved."

Michigan's actions give Biden voters advantages of course through illegal actions.
And that disenfranchises Texas, to a degree devaluing the individual voter in Texas.
To claim no other states are involved is just asinine but, look who is making that point.

You are attempting to present facts to the mentally ill.

 

[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?

All the ones that were changed, moron.

Fucking moron, you already answered that post of mine with, "Mail-in voting, for one, asshole." But you fail because there was nothing illegal about mail-in voting. So which other rules were illegally changed?

 

[meaner gene]

Jesus. Elections are a state matter. They are governed by THAT STATES laws and adjudicated by that states court system.

One state can not sue another state over how that state runs its elections.

This is beyond silly. I mean worthy of Rudy Toot Toot silly

Wrong...There is precident

Let's see it.

 

[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

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.

But you are being laughed at.

While your candidate goes down in flames? The color of the sky in your world must be gray.

 

[BluesLegend]

Where does the state law of Michigan allow mail-in voting?

Dems give two shits about the law. What's funny though is the historical irony over Hillary telling Biden not to concede for any reason and now the left's conniption fit over Trump refusing to concede.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You are attempting to present facts to the mentally ill.

Well there are rumors of Arizona, Kentucky, Ohio, Alaska and Wyoming also joining the lawsuit, and I bet N Carolina will as well.

 

[Indeependent]

You are attempting to present facts to the mentally ill.

Well there are rumors of Arizona, Kentucky, Ohio and Wyoming also joining the lawsuit, and I bet N Carolina will as well.

I heard about Arizona.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Where does the state law of Michigan allow mail-in voting?

Dems give two shits about the law. What's funny though is the historical irony over Hillary telling Biden not to concede for any reason and now the left's conniption fit over Trump refusing to concede.

Democrats embrace their inner hypocrit.