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

[JimBowie1958]

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.

I cant find an article though on any of them.

So rumors untill NewsMax confirms it I guess.

 

[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.

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?

LOLOLOLOL

You think you have facts on your side, do ya, fucking moron? Is that why none of this supposed "facts" can be proven in a court of law?

 

[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.

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?

It is illegal if it's not a law in the state, and unless the legislature voted to make it a law, then it's illegal. The governor or state courts cannot change the law unilaterally. What part of that don't you get?

 

[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

Let's see it.

Look it up...I’m turning in...gotta work early...

 

[Pogo]

Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!

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

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

www.breitbart.com

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

​

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

…​

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

​

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

Yuh huh.

And just HOW exactly is Texas "injured" by what the fuck some other state is doing? Hm?

The reference Article II Section 1 Clause 2 reads, and we know it well by now:

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<

Read it again --- "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". Not "in such Manner as the AG of Frickin' Texas may direct".

This clown should be disbarred.

 

[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?

LOLOLOLOL

You think you have facts on your side, do ya, fucking moron? Is that why none of this supposed "facts" can be proven in a court of law?

Who said they can't?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Who said they can't?

Chicom News Network

 

[dudmuck]

 

[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.

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

A world where a criminal like Biden can swindle his way into the presidency is indeed a gray world.

 

[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?

Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.

Nope, nothing illegal about them.

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

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

Section 168.759

 

[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.

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.

A state cannot tell another state how to conduct their elections. Nor is one state injured by another state's elections.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The dominion conspiracy is double stupid.

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

just a blatant bold lie which you seem to specialize in. Where has Dominion gone to if they are so pure
and non controversial? They've just shut down offices, scrubbed identities and declined to show up in
Pennsylvania for a little talk with officials there.

Michigan Judge Allows Forensic Investigation Of Dominion Voting Machines

What will come of this...

wbckfm.com

Feeling stupid yet? You have no conscience apparently you lie so much and so freely.

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.

Dominion weighs ballots. It gives Biden votes more worth than Trump votes. In addition:

Georgia voting irregularities: The curious case of Biden’s 20,000-vote surge - The Citizen

A curious thing happened as Fulton County, Ga., election officials counted mail-in ballots at Atlanta’s State Farm Arena in the days after the election. By PAUL SPERRY RealClearInvestigations [EDITOR’S NOTE: This …

thecitizen.com

Why do you bother hanging around lying and bullshitting? Your little plan to steal the election
is in the middle of a collapse. Thank you Texas. Thank you Supreme Court.
Thank you rabid stupid democrats.

 

[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?

It is illegal if it's not a law in the state, and unless the legislature voted to make it a law, then it's illegal. The governor or state courts cannot change the law unilaterally. What part of that don't you get?

I'm still waiting for you to present such an example.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You are attempting to present facts to the mentally ill.

He really is a dumb fuck. His idiocy fascinates me.

 

[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

Which rules were changed illegally?

In general, it was changes to mail-in voting procedures and/or signature requirements (depends upon the state). I previously posted the lawsuit, which you can read for yourself.

 

[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.

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?

LOLOLOLOL

You think you have facts on your side, do ya, fucking moron? Is that why none of this supposed "facts" can be proven in a court of law?

Who said they can't?

LOLOLOL

They haven't. Are you telling me they can, they've just chosen not to???

Fucking moron, if they could have, they would have.

 

[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.

A world where a criminal like Biden can swindle his way into the presidency is indeed a gray world.

LOL

By swindle, you mean beat Impeached Trump by 74 electoral votes and 7 million popular votes while you shriek, "FRAUD," but after 36 days, have still not proven any fraud in a court of law.

 

[meaner gene]

It is illegal if it's not a law in the state, and unless the legislature voted to make it a law, then it's illegal. The governor or state courts cannot change the law unilaterally. What part of that don't you get?

Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS :: CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT :: ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS :: PART 1 - GOVERNOR :: § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;

law.justia.com

ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
PART 1 - GOVERNOR
§ 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor

(4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.

 

[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.

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

A world where a criminal like Biden can swindle his way into the presidency is indeed a gray world.

LOL

By swindle, you mean beat Impeached Trump by 74 electoral votes and 7 million popular votes while you shriek, "FRAUD," but after 36 days, have still not proven any fraud in a court of law.

5 millon of those votes were manufactured out of thin air.

 

[bripat9643]

It is illegal if it's not a law in the state, and unless the legislature voted to make it a law, then it's illegal. The governor or state courts cannot change the law unilaterally. What part of that don't you get?

Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS :: CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT :: ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS :: PART 1 - GOVERNOR :: § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;

law.justia.com

ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
PART 1 - GOVERNOR
§ 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor

(4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.

Those powers don't apply to election law. The Constitution grants those powers only to the state legislature. How many times does that fact have to pounded into your thick skull?