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

[bripat9643]

Wrong, the legislature granted the governor those powers, therefore it was an act of the legislature. If they did not want it to include election law, they would have codified an exception. They did not.

It's like giving somebody power of attorney without limitations.

The legislature can't amend the US constitution, fuck nuts.

They didn't. They gave the governor legislative powers.

IE: Allowed him to act under their authority as if done by themselves.

What part of "the legislature can't delegate powers that have been granted to it by the US Constitution" don't you understand?

 

[Skylar]

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?

Sorry but the SC has held that "the legislature" extends to the voters and to the courts as well

Utter bullshit.

Please cite the case.

You're asking for sources? You? Who routinely makes up steaming piles of pseudo-legal horseshit and can never back any of it?

 

[Rogue AI]

Those four states didn't follow the law in their state. The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature. That didn't happen.

What you have said here is untrue.

No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.

These states followed the relevent laws in their state.

That's a lie, GA required ID from some voters, not from others. In PA some counties allowed voters to cure defective ballots and not in others. Both violates the States and federal due process clauses and State election laws.

.

The PA curing issue was already adjudicated by the federal courts and found to be perfectly legal. Appeals to the Supreme Court have never received cert.

Except that curing process is arbitrary. Some were cured some weren't, which leads right back to equal protection.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

So tell the class, where does it say the State SOS can enter into a consent decree and alter what the legislature directed? Dumb fucking commie.

.

 

[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?

Sorry but the SC has held that "the legislature" extends to the voters and to the courts as well

Utter bullshit.

Please cite the case.

You're asking for sources? You? Who routinely makes up steaming piles of pseudo-legal horseshit and can never back any of it?

IN other words, you can't provide a case demonstrating your claim.

 

[Skylar]

Wrong, the legislature granted the governor those powers, therefore it was an act of the legislature. If they did not want it to include election law, they would have codified an exception. They did not.

It's like giving somebody power of attorney without limitations.

The legislature can't amend the US constitution, fuck nuts.

They didn't. They gave the governor legislative powers.

IE: Allowed him to act under their authority as if done by themselves.

What part of "the legislature can't delegate powers that have been granted to it by the US Constitution" don't you understand?

The part where you have no idea what you're talking about. Congress has delegated its powers all the time. Why would the State legislatures be unable to do so?

 

[Skylar]

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?

Sorry but the SC has held that "the legislature" extends to the voters and to the courts as well

Utter bullshit.

Please cite the case.

You're asking for sources? You? Who routinely makes up steaming piles of pseudo-legal horseshit and can never back any of it?

IN other words, you can't provide a case demonstrating your claim.

And what claim did I make? Quote me.

 

[Skylar]

Those four states didn't follow the law in their state. The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature. That didn't happen.

What you have said here is untrue.

No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.

These states followed the relevent laws in their state.

That's a lie, GA required ID from some voters, not from others. In PA some counties allowed voters to cure defective ballots and not in others. Both violates the States and federal due process clauses and State election laws.

.

The PA curing issue was already adjudicated by the federal courts and found to be perfectly legal. Appeals to the Supreme Court have never received cert.

Except that curing process is arbitrary. Some were cured some weren't, which leads right back to equal protection.

The equal protection issues as they relate to curing were directly addressed in the federal rulings. And found to be invalid.

No appeals of these cases to the Supreme Court have ever been granted writ.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Wrong, the legislature granted the governor those powers, therefore it was an act of the legislature. If they did not want it to include election law, they would have codified an exception. They did not.

It's like giving somebody power of attorney without limitations.

So show us where that power was granted to the GA SOS.

.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Wrong, the legislature granted the governor those powers, therefore it was an act of the legislature. If they did not want it to include election law, they would have codified an exception. They did not.

It's like giving somebody power of attorney without limitations.

So show us where that power was granted to the GA SOS.

.

Kemp seems pretty sure about the issue:

“Georgia law prohibits the governor from interfering in elections. The secretary of state, who is an elected constitutional officer, has oversight over elections that cannot be overridden by executive order,” a spokesperson for Kemp told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

 

[Rogue AI]

Those four states didn't follow the law in their state. The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature. That didn't happen.

What you have said here is untrue.

No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.

These states followed the relevent laws in their state.

That's a lie, GA required ID from some voters, not from others. In PA some counties allowed voters to cure defective ballots and not in others. Both violates the States and federal due process clauses and State election laws.

.

The PA curing issue was already adjudicated by the federal courts and found to be perfectly legal. Appeals to the Supreme Court have never received cert.

Except that curing process is arbitrary. Some were cured some weren't, which leads right back to equal protection.

The equal protection issues as they relate to curing were directly addressed in the federal rulings. And found to be invalid.

No appeals of these cases to the Supreme Court have ever been granted writ.

Previously you did not have the sheer numbers you have this cycle, more so with the ridiculously low rejection rates. Look at Wisconsin, the absentee ballot use tripled or quadruped from 2016. Yet rejection rates were significantly lower. That outcome defies logic.

 

[Skylar]

Those four states didn't follow the law in their state. The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature. That didn't happen.

What you have said here is untrue.

No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.

These states followed the relevent laws in their state.

That's a lie, GA required ID from some voters, not from others. In PA some counties allowed voters to cure defective ballots and not in others. Both violates the States and federal due process clauses and State election laws.

.

The PA curing issue was already adjudicated by the federal courts and found to be perfectly legal. Appeals to the Supreme Court have never received cert.

Except that curing process is arbitrary. Some were cured some weren't, which leads right back to equal protection.

The equal protection issues as they relate to curing were directly addressed in the federal rulings. And found to be invalid.

No appeals of these cases to the Supreme Court have ever been granted writ.

Previously you did not have the sheer numbers you have this cycle, more so with the ridiculously low rejection rates. Look at Wisconsin, the absentee ballot use tripled or quadruped from 2016. Yet rejection rates were significantly lower. That outcome defies logic.

The federal rulings were about the 2020 election and the PA curing issue as it relates to Equal Protection violations, specifically.

This issue was already adudicated. No violations were ever found. And the Supreme Court has never granted cert to any appeals.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Yeah, that's why Elan Musk told CA to pound sand and moved to TX, yep, must be. LMAO

.

Elon Musk isn't who is turning Arizona, Georgia and Texas blue.

Neither will the thousands of people he hires. I have some new neighbors who just moved here from OR, they won't be turning the State blue either. They couldn't wait to get the hell out of that shit hole.

.

 

[Rogue AI]

Those four states didn't follow the law in their state. The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature. That didn't happen.

What you have said here is untrue.

No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.

These states followed the relevent laws in their state.

That's a lie, GA required ID from some voters, not from others. In PA some counties allowed voters to cure defective ballots and not in others. Both violates the States and federal due process clauses and State election laws.

.

The PA curing issue was already adjudicated by the federal courts and found to be perfectly legal. Appeals to the Supreme Court have never received cert.

Except that curing process is arbitrary. Some were cured some weren't, which leads right back to equal protection.

The equal protection issues as they relate to curing were directly addressed in the federal rulings. And found to be invalid.

No appeals of these cases to the Supreme Court have ever been granted writ.

Previously you did not have the sheer numbers you have this cycle, more so with the ridiculously low rejection rates. Look at Wisconsin, the absentee ballot use tripled or quadruped from 2016. Yet rejection rates were significantly lower. That outcome defies logic.

The federal rulings were about the 2020 election and the PA curing issue as it relates to Equal Protection violations, specifically.

This issue was already adudicated. No violations were ever found. And the Supreme Court has never granted cert to any appeals.

Well that's PA and all indications are the whole process was flawed from top to bottom. A second, third, or hundredth look seems like a good idea.

 

[OKTexas]

Those four states didn't follow the law in their state. The change in ballot approvals, per law in each of those states, was supposed to go through the state legislature. That didn't happen.

What you have said here is untrue.

No, it's true. It didn't go through state legislatures.

These states followed the relevent laws in their state.

That's a lie, GA required ID from some voters, not from others. In PA some counties allowed voters to cure defective ballots and not in others. Both violates the States and federal due process clauses and State election laws.

.

The PA curing issue was already adjudicated by the federal courts and found to be perfectly legal. Appeals to the Supreme Court have never received cert.

Has nothing to do with the due process issue and voters being treated different depending on the county.

.

 

[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.

Yeah, that's why Elan Musk told CA to pound sand and moved to TX, yep, must be. LMAO

.

Elon Musk isn't who is turning Arizona, Georgia and Texas blue.

Neither will the thousands of people he hires. I have some new neighbors who just moved here from OR, they won't be turning the State blue either. They couldn't wait to get the hell out of that shit hole.

.

It would all the hundreds of thousands of OTHER people moving from high value states with superb home values to low value states with cheap land that are turning Arizona, Georgia and Texas blue.

Like San Francisco to San Antonio. Or Seattle to the suburbs of Atlanta. Or Portland to Tuscon.

I've lived in both California and Texas. They're both great.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Wrong, the legislature granted the governor those powers, therefore it was an act of the legislature. If they did not want it to include election law, they would have codified an exception. They did not.

It's like giving somebody power of attorney without limitations.

So show us where that power was granted to the GA SOS.

.

Kemp seems pretty sure about the issue:

“Georgia law prohibits the governor from interfering in elections. The secretary of state, who is an elected constitutional officer, has oversight over elections that cannot be overridden by executive order,” a spokesperson for Kemp told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

So you can't answer, got it. Oversight and unilaterally changing the law are two different things.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Yeah, that's why Elan Musk told CA to pound sand and moved to TX, yep, must be. LMAO

.

Elon Musk isn't who is turning Arizona, Georgia and Texas blue.

Neither will the thousands of people he hires. I have some new neighbors who just moved here from OR, they won't be turning the State blue either. They couldn't wait to get the hell out of that shit hole.

.

It would all the hundreds of thousands of OTHER people moving from high value states with superb home values to low value states with cheap land that are turning Arizona, Georgia and Texas blue.

Like San Francisco to San Antonio. Or Seattle to the suburbs of Atlanta. Or Portland to Tuscon.

I've lived in both California and Texas. They're both great.

Yeah, that's why Cornyn beat the commie by almost 10 points. He actually outperformed Trump.

.

 

[Care4all]

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.

Not to concede early before all the absentee ballots are counted, the primary means of voting, by democrats. Which are counted last....

All the votes have been counted...and recounted and canvassed and certified.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

Not to concede early before all the absentee ballots are counted, the primary means of voting, by democrats. Which are counted last....

All the votes have been counted...and recounted and canvassed and certified.

Then sit back, relax and enjoy the show.