Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Plain and simple, its a mental disease and disorder.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)
ooo - nice. that's gonna leave a mark.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.
this isn't trumps appeal now is it? they denied that one and took this one on.Thats a State legal issue, the legislature can sue, the State Courts can decide if it broke their state laws or constitution on elections.you once again SURPRISE are not answering the question.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.But the legislature did NOT approve or vote on the changes.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.
If they did, show me. Otherwise just stop the bullshit.
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.
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.
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.
That isn't what Bush v. Gore ruled.Yes they can. The legislature is the only entity that can change the law any time it wants toNo 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.
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.
Wrong See ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
And that's an important point.Did you not catch the part where he proposes this after the election ?
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
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.
You ignored the answer.
Wrong See ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
The ruling on gay marriage was utter horseshit and obviously wrong. Your descroption of what happened is wrong.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)
You totally misunderstand or misinterpret G v B. It used equal protection as its "basis" and even there said that it should not be used as precedent (because it would invalidate every election held until we have a national statute on elections)That isn't what Bush v. Gore ruled.
Actually the 4th and 9th circuit are dealing with that right now. The original judgement was that there was an equal protection argument. But that was overturned because there is no legal remedy to equal protection violations.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.
I didnt say I had the answers, did I ?And that's an important point.Did you not catch the part where he proposes this after the election ?
In order to rule in favor of this lawsuit the SC would have to usurp an election that has already been held. Then what? Force a new election?
Highly unlikely that the SC would do that, especially to protect friggin Trump
The fuck are you babbling about. It ruled on what "the legislature" meansArizona isn't the answer and isn't listed ... You are wrong ...
Then what: the election goes to Congress where each state has one vote.And that's an important point.Did you not catch the part where he proposes this after the election ?
In order to rule in favor of this lawsuit the SC would have to usurp an election that has already been held. Then what? Force a new election?
Highly unlikely that the SC would do that, especially to protect friggin Trump
Arizona isn't the answer and isn't listed ... You are wrong ...
The fuck are you babbling about. It ruled on what "the legislature" means
Dragonlady said the SC ruled that Florida couldn't change their election law at the last minute. I rightly pointed out that she's full of shit. Now you're saying she claimed something different.You totally misunderstand or misinterpret G v B. It used equal protection as its "basis" and even there said that it should not be used as precedent (because it would invalidate every election held until we have a national statute on elections)That isn't what Bush v. Gore ruled.
But then you are stupid and dishonest so...
It doesn't need to be stupid. That case set precedentArizona isn't listed as a State in suit.
Then what: the election goes to Congress where each state has one vote.
Actually the 4th and 9th circuit are dealing with that right now. The original judgement was that there was an equal protection argument. But that was overturned because there is no legal remedy to equal protection violations.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.
Example, if one town has an average police or fire, or EMT response time twice that of the town next door. Can they sue for equal protection. Force their town to give them the same protection as the town next door?
The court used the legal maxim, where there is no remedy, there is no right. If the court can't fix it, you have no right to it.
And demanding the votes in every county in the country be handled equally is beyond what a court has jurisdiction to order.
I'm "babbling" about a case from Arizona (listed above) that set precedent for what the SC considers "the Legislature" to be. If you are too stupid to understand that just stop talkingYou're the one babbling about Arizona and Arizona isn't included in the case.
Quit arguing, you are wring and are going to keep being wrong
