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

[BlackSand]

You'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

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 talking

Arizona doesn't set precedence for the Supreme Court when ruling on the Constitutionality.
It's not that I am too stupid to understand what you are saying, just that what you are saying doesn't apply to the case in question.

.

 

[Lesh]

This is like a team with one second left on their own ten and behind by 20 points throwing a Hail Mary

Not gonna happen. Kinda sad actually

Just take a knee

 

[postman]

Arizona isn't listed as a State in suit.
And ... It doesn't take the power away from the States ... It simply says that every Precinct within the State has to follow the same rules.

Don't argue ... You are simply wrong ...

You are wrong. Circuit courts have clearly said that in order for every precinct to follow the same rules, they would have to use the same equipment, and they do not have the power to force independent boards of election to use the same equipment, or standards or rules.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

Let's set aside the fact that the Texas governor changed election policy through order and not by legislation. Most (maybe all I haven't examined the entire thing with a fine tooth comb) of the "problems" that it alleges had already worked it's way through the courts of each state which determine the interpretation and constitutionality of the state laws. Some of it is just meaningless nit picks. For example, they take issue with Georgia calling voters who have issues with their ballots that need to be cured. The law states that they need to be notified in writing. Okay, so the state did both, what's the problem?

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 don't know about that. I know for sure they take issue with Pennsylvania not applying the law equally. They state that voters in different counties were not given the opportunity to cure their ballots because some local officials decided not to inform people who had issues. Pennsylvania law is silent about the ability for people to cure their ballots, and the state officials did notify local officials that it is a good idea to do. These were not different sets of laws but just dereliction of some local officials to help their voters. If the law does not mandate or forbid something, it cannot be unequal application of law.

There's a lot more to this lawsuit including some very shoddy claims of fraud from some very poor quality analysis.

But the points you raised above are central to this rebuttal. These policies were changed before the election and voters went to the polls operating under these circumstances. Deciding after the election to challenge these issues would remove the votes from many millions of voters. For what? For what harm are they claiming?

 

[postman]

The ruling on gay marriage was utter horseshit and obviously wrong. Your descroption of what happened is wrong.

Stare Decicis

 

[Lesh]

Arizona doesn't set precedence for the Supreme Court when ruling on the Constitutionality.
It's not that I am too stupid to understand what you are saying, just that what you are saying doesn't apply to the case in question.

OMG...you really are that stupid?

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION

That's a previous SC case. In that case the Court ruled as to what "the Legislature" means and it was a broad ruling.

Do you understand the concept of "precedent"?

Please stop embarrassing yourself

 

[colfax_m]

this isn't trumps appeal now is it? they denied that one and took this one on.

stop projecting fantasies.

Saying SCOTUS "took this one one" isn't particularly accurate. SCOTUS is not hearing this case right now, they've yet to make a decision on whether the case will be heard. Texas has so far asked for a "leave to file".

 

[iceberg]

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.

Let's set aside the fact that the Texas governor changed election policy through order and not by legislation. Most (maybe all I haven't examined the entire thing with a fine tooth comb) of the "problems" that it alleges had already worked it's way through the courts of each state which determine the interpretation and constitutionality of the state laws. Some of it is just meaningless nit picks. For example, they take issue with Georgia calling voters who have issues with their ballots that need to be cured. The law states that they need to be notified in writing. Okay, so the state did both, what's the problem?

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 don't know about that. I know for sure they take issue with Pennsylvania not applying the law equally. They state that voters in different counties were not given the opportunity to cure their ballots because some local officials decided not to inform people who had issues. Pennsylvania law is silent about the ability for people to cure their ballots, and the state officials did notify local officials that it is a good idea to do. These were not different sets of laws but just dereliction of some local officials to help their voters. If the law does not mandate or forbid something, it cannot be unequal application of law.

There's a lot more to this lawsuit including some very shoddy claims of fraud from some very poor quality analysis.

But the points you raised above are central to this rebuttal. These policies were changed before the election and voters went to the polls operating under these circumstances. Deciding after the election to challenge these issues would remove the votes from many millions of voters. For what? For what harm are they claiming?

are you suggesting people do not have to follow their own constitutional process?

we keep breaking down authority when we don't like it but run screaming for their help when we're under attack. you act as if no one tried to stop the bullshit before the election.

not the case.

 

[postman]

Then what: the election goes to Congress where each state has one vote.

Worst case is the USSC invalidates the 64 electors from GA, MI, WI, and PA.

The victory still goes to Biden 244 to 232.

 

[mascale]

"Law" has basis in the "Elections Clause," in the matter. Federalist 59 is most likely better studied at Supreme Court, far more than in most high schools(?). Passages are cited in related opinions.

At minimum, the National Security problem arises. From what source did Texas AG, and the other 17 states, and the President of the United States: Derive the strategy intended to overturn the "Elections Clause," and relevant Constitutional sections? One stupid commentator alleges a Secession plot(?). Federalist 59 was likely alluding to worldwide royal families. Any "Cold War" level adversary now has economic interests at stake.

Understanding Texas completely: The children of immigrants and refugees come from there--Cuban even(?)!

There is no valid Constitutional challenge even detailed in the filing. Names, addresses, sections of legislation, histories of state legislation, detailed references to local and state court rulings and on and on. Nothing is presented, or referenced.

Texas is a bogus place.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Then there is even Pharaoh's likely arithmetic of subjugation, Deut 23: 19-20, of some "Chosen" people selected by the Moslem and Christian princes to gouge and screw millions for centuries!)

 

[Lesh]

This is like a team with one second left on their own ten and behind by 20 points throwing a Hail Mary

Not gonna happen. Kinda sad actually

Just take a knee

I repeat

 

[iceberg]

Then what: the election goes to Congress where each state has one vote.

Worst case is the USSC invalidates the 64 electors from GA, MI, WI, and PA.

The victory still goes to Biden 244 to 232.

you keep saying this as if it is true.

the election doesn't simply give it to most votes, it goes to the house.

if no one hits 270, The presidential election is left up to members of the House of Representatives in the event of a tie or any results where no one wins 270 electoral votes. The choice for the vice president is left up to the Senate.

 

[postman]

are you suggesting people do not have to follow their own constitutional process?

That is up to their courts to determine.

think of it like a speeding ticket. You can't force a cop to write somebody a speeding ticket. Even though that's what the law requires.

Similarly you can't fight a speeding ticket based on the officer not ticketing the other speeders.

If a states courts determine that the state doesn't have to follow it's own constitution or it's own laws, that's the end of the matter.

 

[colfax_m]

are you suggesting people do not have to follow their own constitutional process?

I'm stating they did follow their own constitutional process. That's how these changes came about in the first place.

 

[postman]

we keep breaking down authority when we don't like it but run screaming for their help when we're under attack. you act as if no one tried to stop the bullshit before the election.

not the case.

Actually in the Pennsylvania case, that's exactly what happened. Nobody objected to Act 77, for almost a year. With no objection to it's use during the states primary election.

Had there been an objection, the courts could not have used the doctrine of laches.

 

[Faun]

That isn't what Bush v. Gore ruled.

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)

But then you are stupid and dishonest so...

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're also full of shit.

Fucking moron, the SCOTUS ruled that different counties were applying different methods in recounting votes. Meaning a vote might count for a candidate in one county but not count for that same candidate in another county. Then the SCOTUS ruled there was not enough time to remedy that inequality; which ended the recounts with Bush up by 537 votes.

 

[Lesh]

if no one hits 270, The presidential election is left up to members of the House of Representatives in the event of a tie or any results where no one wins 270 electoral votes. The choice for the vice president is left up to the Senate.

That is the cynical ploy here. The Trumpers are hoping to bollucks uo the election and force it into Congress...knowing that THERE...the result lies not in the number of Representatives but rather in the states themselves. Each state gets one vote determined by the majority of Reps in Congress from that state. The GOP holds more states determined in that way

Trumpers can count (even if just barely) and know this would give them a win.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

"The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures.

The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials. A few states have chosen to transfer power to draw congressional district lines from their respective legislatures to non-partisan or bipartisan “independent redistricting commissions.”

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

 

[Lesh]

Fucking moron, the SCOTUS ruled that different counties were applying different methods in recounting votes. Meaning a vote might count for a candidate in one county but not count for that same candidate in another county. Then the SCOTUS ruled there was not enough time to remedy that inequality; which ended the recounts with Bush up by 537 votes.

A bogus and purely politically motivated ruling that even THEY said should not be used as precedent.

 

[postman]

if no one hits 270, The presidential election is left up to members of the House of Representatives in the event of a tie or any results where no one wins 270 electoral votes. The choice for the vice president is left up to the Senate.

Absolutely false. Look at the first election. It was based on the number of electors that were appointed, not the number of electors states were entitled to.

If the SC invalidates the 64 electors from those four states, the election goes to whoever has the majority from the electors appointed.