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

[bripat9643]

The constitution gives legislatures the power to choose the manner in which electors are chosen.... by the legislature voting themselves, or by the vote of the citizens, or by flipping a coin etc.

These legislatures chose to give up the legislature picking the electors, and gave it to the citizens to choose.

And having selected the method of choosing the electors, the legislature can't change the law in the middle of the election. And they certainly can't change the law ex-post facto.

The method, whether the EC is chosen by the legislature, the voters, or by flipping a coin must remain in place.

All of the claims being made in the Texas law suit have been litigated at the lower court level and tossed out of court as lacking merit or evidence. This lawsuit will be tossed out too. This is simply a stunt whereby the Texas AG, who is currently under indictment in Texas, is angling for one of those pardons that Dumb Donald is giving out on his way out the door.

 

[postman]

That's why they took it to the Supreme Court.
It is not a requirement to go through lower courts, if the case involves discrepancies or conflicts between 2 or more States.
In this case ... It a conflict between more than two states.

.

Actually there is no conflict. Georgia voted how they wanted to vote, and Texas voted how they wanted to vote.

This is like gay marriage. One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state. They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.

 

[bripat9643]

The constitution gives legislatures the power to choose the manner in which electors are chosen.... by the legislature voting themselves, or by the vote of the citizens, or by flipping a coin etc.

These legislatures chose to give up the legislature picking the electors, and gave it to the citizens to choose.

And having selected the method of choosing the electors, the legislature can't change the law in the middle of the election. And they certainly can't change the law ex-post facto.

The method, whether the EC is chosen by the legislature, the voters, or by flipping a coin must remain in place.

Yes they can. The legislature is the only entity that can change the law any time it wants to

No it can't. The legislature can't change the rules the day before an election, nor can they change them AFTER the election has already occurred, which is what Texas seems to be asking the SC to do - change the rules of the election in these 4 states, AFTER the public has voted.

The whole suit is laughable.

Yes it can.

 

[bripat9643]

That's why they took it to the Supreme Court.
It is not a requirement to go through lower courts, if the case involves discrepancies or conflicts between 2 or more States.
In this case ... It a conflict between more than two states.

.

Actually there is no conflict. Georgia voted how they wanted to vote, and Texas voted how they wanted to vote.

This is like gay marriage. One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state. They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.

Then why did we end up making gay marriage legal across the entire country?

Something seems to be wrong with your theory.

 

[BlindBoo]

I don't know what the lawsuit is asking for, because they've already gone PAST the "safe harbor" If they invalidate the EC votes of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia, Trump still won't win.

Remember, it's not a race to 270, it's a race to the majority of elector appointed. If they decertify 62 electors, than the total drops from 538 to 476 and you now need 239 to win.
Biden had 306, minus 62 gives him 244

244 is still more than the 239 needed to win.

It's simple math.

The Texas Gov. made changes too and was sued by the Texas Legislature over it.. So the SC should also Drop Texas from the total as well. I understand a total of 30 state made minor administrative changes due to the

 

[Dogbiscuit]

This is like gay marriage. One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state. They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.

The problem with your analogy, is that normal people that live in those states, that allow gay marriage, dont want things shoved up their anus. They want to love and protect their children's future.
Same applies for their votes.

 

[bripat9643]

Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.

People calling it fraud are way off base.

Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?

After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?

I do not think so.

And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?

Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?

There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.

Do you ever read the articles? Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?

Yeah, and is was one of the things the Texas case said was an irregularity or illegal.

The SC won't take the case is my bet, or take it for some time down the road, where the people's choice of Biden is not affected.

The states are not hurt by how the other states run their elections. They have no standing.

Yes, they are. I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.

Texans voted, Texans appointed their electors. What another state does is none of their bee's wax, according to the constitution.... imo. The people of those 4 states chose Biden, by landslides in most of them....there is no ambiguity. The laws tweaked by the court rulings, truly matters naught...Biden, was chosen by their citizens to be our next president, in good faith.... they followed the election laws they were told were legal.

Your opinion isn't worth shit. So if another state approves slavery, that's none of your business? You realize that your fucking stupid, don't you?

There's no evidence of 'fraud.'

One cannot be hurt by that which doesn't exist.

 

[postman]

This is like gay marriage. One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state. They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.

Then why did we end up making gay marriage legal across the entire country?

States sued, saying that gay marriage was invalid. Just like Texas is suing that the vote in Georgia in invalid.

But as you pointed out, instead of invalidating the other states rules, they forced all the states to accept them.

Privileges and immunities, Vs Equal protection

 

[postman]

Yes they can. The legislature is the only entity that can change the law any time it wants to

No it can't. The legislature can't change the rules the day before an election, nor can they change them AFTER the election has already occurred, which is what Texas seems to be asking the SC to do - change the rules of the election in these 4 states, AFTER the public has voted.

The whole suit is laughable.

Yes it can.

Even Bush v Gore said that they can't change the law during an election cycle.

 

[postman]

The Texas Gov. made changes too and was sued by the Texas Legislature over it.. So the SC should also Drop Texas from the total as well. I understand a total of 30 state made minor administrative changes due to the

I pointed out that many states, when they granted the chief executive "extra powers" during a declared emergency, that was part of the mechanism that legislature set up to handle elections. Think of it like giving somebody unqualified power of attorney.

Anything you can do, they can do in your name, just as if you did them yourself.

 

[colfax_m]

At minimum I hope the USSC considers what is proposed toward the end of this video starting at the 2:30 minute mark.

Dick Morris to Newsmax TV: Lawsuit to Overturn Election by Texas AG Paxton 'Brilliant'

Political strategist Dick Morris calls Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's lawsuit with the Supreme Court seeking to invalidate Joe Biden's election victory "absolutely brilliant."...

www.newsmax.com

Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So that we dont have these issues in the future.

Dick Morris's statements here are gibberish.

“It also puts the court squarely on notice that the case is about unequal treatment of the laws, that a voter in Texas had one set of rules and a voter in Pennsylvania had another set. While the state has the right to set those rules, they don’t have the right to basically devalue the Texans’ vote and throw it out by replacing it with a phony Biden vote.”

So, wait, the constitution says that each state set's it's own rules, so it's not actually about unequal treatment of the laws because the laws are different in different states. Complete gibberish.

The electoral college vote for Biden isn't "phony", it's very real by a very real elector and with very real authority to do so.

 

[Lesh]

This is like gay marriage. One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state. They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.

The problem with your analogy, is that normal people that live in those states, that allow gay marriage, dont want things shoved up their anus. They want to love and protect their children's future.
Same applies for their votes.

You can shove your vote up your ass if you want to.

 

[Lesh]

Again. The SC had held that "the Legislature" can be broadly interpreted to mean the voters, or any state entity (the Governor, a Commission etc.)

See ... ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION

 

[Dogbiscuit]

At minimum I hope the USSC considers what is proposed toward the end of this video starting at the 2:30 minute mark.

Dick Morris to Newsmax TV: Lawsuit to Overturn Election by Texas AG Paxton 'Brilliant'

Political strategist Dick Morris calls Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's lawsuit with the Supreme Court seeking to invalidate Joe Biden's election victory "absolutely brilliant."...

www.newsmax.com

Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So that we dont have these issues in the future.

Dick Morris's statements here are gibberish.

“It also puts the court squarely on notice that the case is about unequal treatment of the laws, that a voter in Texas had one set of rules and a voter in Pennsylvania had another set. While the state has the right to set those rules, they don’t have the right to basically devalue the Texans’ vote and throw it out by replacing it with a phony Biden vote.”

So, wait, the constitution says that each state set's it's own rules, so it's not actually about unequal treatment of the laws because the laws are different in different states. Complete gibberish.

The electoral college vote for Biden isn't "phony", it's very real by a very real elector and with very real authority to do so.

Did you not catch the part where he proposes this after the election ?
This problem with states suing states is setting a precedent, and will likely happen again. There is obviously flaws and fraud in different states, so would you by chance have a proposition that might improve or exceed this so called gibberish ?

 

[BlackSand]

Actually there is no conflict. Georgia voted how they wanted to vote, and Texas voted how they wanted to vote.

This is like gay marriage. One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state. They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.

Actually there is a conflict ... And it has nothing to do with gay marriage.
The States filing the case with Supreme Court don't have a problem with Georgia or the other States voting the way their State Legislatures decide to vote.

The conflict is that the States in question did not follow laws passed by their State Legislatures as required by the US Constitution.
A State Governor, or State Court, cannot dictate election policy, and only the State Legislatures can, and through legislation.

Secondary ... The dictates were not followed/enforced equally by all precincts within each State in question.
That violates the Equal Protection Under the Law in regards to the vote and Articles in the Election Rights Act.

 

[postman]

This is like gay marriage. One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state. They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.

The problem with your analogy, is that normal people that live in those states, that allow gay marriage, dont want things shoved up their anus. They want to love and protect their children's future.
Same applies for their votes.

The analogy holds. With gay marriage it started when one state expanded the definition of marriage. Just like with voting, when states expanded the conditions of their elections

In both cases, states objected to the expansions, and sued to invalidate them. But in the end the USSC said that gay marriage in one state in no way harmed the marriages in another state, and using privileges and immunities, expanded gay marriage to all the states.

Why would it be no different when states expand voting?

It in no way harms the votes from the other states.

(p.s. that's what happened in the gay marriage argument)

 

[Dogbiscuit]

This is like gay marriage. One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state. They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.

The problem with your analogy, is that normal people that live in those states, that allow gay marriage, dont want things shoved up their anus. They want to love and protect their children's future.
Same applies for their votes.

You can shove your vote up your ass if you want to.

Ahhhwww thats so sweet, but no thank you.
Mine is programmed for exit only.
Im sorry, I didnt know you were mentally disturbed.

 

[Lesh]

A State Governor, or Court, cannot dictate election policy, and only the State Legislatures can.

Wrong See ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION

That violates the Equal Protection under law in regards to the vote and Articles in the Election Rights Act.

You do not want to use the Equal Protection argument.

That would require national elections taking that power away from the states

 

[postman]

Dick Morris's statements here are gibberish.

“It also puts the court squarely on notice that the case is about unequal treatment of the laws, that a voter in Texas had one set of rules and a voter in Pennsylvania had another set. While the state has the right to set those rules, they don’t have the right to basically devalue the Texans’ vote and throw it out by replacing it with a phony Biden vote.”

So, wait, the constitution says that each state set's it's own rules, so it's not actually about unequal treatment of the laws because the laws are different in different states. Complete gibberish.

The electoral college vote for Biden isn't "phony", it's very real by a very real elector and with very real authority to do so.

A state could regress to having the legislature directly choose the electors, so their people don't get to vote at all, and that would be perfectly legal. And a state can't claim unequal treatment because the voters of the two states are treated opposite.

 

[Care4all]

The constitution gives legislatures the power to choose the manner in which electors are chosen.... by the legislature voting themselves, or by the vote of the citizens, or by flipping a coin etc.

These legislatures chose to give up the legislature picking the electors, and gave it to the citizens to choose.

But the legislature did NOT approve or vote on the changes.

If they did, show me. Otherwise just stop the bullshit.

The duty was to decide if their legislature was going to choose the electors, if not, then who? All of our different legislatures chose the citizens vote would determine and choose their electors. Thats the "manner" in which they are chosen that the constitution speaks of.... once this is chosen, the constitutional requirement is fulfilled.

The US constitution does not govern the finer details of how an election process is done within each state.

The Texas case has no Constitutional standing.

Michiganders etc. can argue about their own processes not being followed in their own State courts.... but the US constitutional mandate of their legislatures choosing the "manner" of electing their electors, thru the citizen's vote, instead of the legislature's vote, was fulfilled, in my opinion.

you once again SURPRISE are not answering the question.

changing how we vote is a legislature function. please see SEPARATION OF POWERS to help understand why we do this.

now - please show me where these states did in fact go through their LEGISLATURE to make these changes.

all you gotta do. anything is else a shitshow distraction that i am simply not going to chase down.

Thats a State legal issue, the legislature can sue, the State Courts can decide if it broke their state laws or constitution on elections.

In Pennsylvania, the State Supreme Court ruled the changes made by the State for this election instead of the legislature did not.

The trump appeal to the SCOTUS, was unanimously denied a couple of days ago.