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

[colfax_m]

The complaint itself is hypocritical. It complains that state courts can't change laws governing elections but simultaneously asks the SCOTUS to suspend laws governing safe harbor and the meeting of the electoral college.

 

[The Original Tree]

The SCOTUS is going to throw out every ballot that did not meet the state's election laws & standards.

They may even order new elections, or a forensic evaluation of the 4 states ballots.

 

[postman]

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.

Correct. The USSC said that the florida SC could not "fix" the standards in one county, without fixing them all. And there was no time to fix them all.

 

[The Original Tree]

The complaint itself is hypocritical. It complains that state courts can't change laws governing elections but simultaneously asks the SCOTUS to suspend laws governing safe harbor and the meeting of the electoral college.

Courts are not supposed to change laws. That is a function of the legislature.

Only commie marxist globalists want to rule a nation through the courts, just like they did in Nazi Germany for illegitimate Hitler. Joe Biden is illegitimate and is a Senile Puppet of China, Big Tech, and Russia, The UN and should not be allowed within 200 yards of The White House ever.

 

[postman]

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

You can't say this enough times.

 

[colfax_m]

Courts are not supposed to change laws. That is a function of the legislature.

And yet, Paxton is asking SCOTUS to do exactly that!

"To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed. Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President."

 

[postman]

The SCOTUS is going to throw out every ballot that did not meet the state's election laws & standards.

They may even order new elections, or a forensic evaluation of the 4 states ballots.

The court has no such power. They can declare an action of a voter made his vote invalid. But they can't determine which ballot is his.

And you don't disenfranchise millions over a single illegal vote.

 

[BlackSand]

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.

It doesn't matter whether or not they have the power to enforce their will ... The Circuit Courts don't write the laws and the Constitution doesn't allow them to.
It doesn't matter what they think they can or cannot do ... The case is that they aren't doing what is necessary.

It's not the fault of other States to abide by what another State(s) finds it can or cannot do.
Texas and the the other States are not saying they want to tell the States in Question how to hold their elections
They are simply stating that the States in question will follow the Constitution and the laws each State passes through their State Legislature, and equally among their precincts.

They aren't asking for excuses.
The Constitution is clear ... And no one gives a shit if a State cannot figure out how to follow their own laws correctly.
It's not a wild goose chase ... There is a case to be made.

.

 

[bripat9643]

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

What case is that? Please cite it.

 

[Faun]

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.

Even worse, they used the provisions from act 77 in the primaries and no one objected then.

Republicans literally waited until there was an election where they didn't like the results to try and change the results based on a law Republicans put into place to take away a victory from Democrats to give to Republicans.

 

[iceberg]

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.

TX and 18 other states disagree. we will see what the SCOTUS says and i'm fine with that.

you keep whining about it, it's what you do.

 

[colfax_m]

TX and 18 other states disagree. we will see what the SCOTUS says and i'm fine with that.

They can disagree all they want, but it has nothing to do with them.

It'd be like me suing you because I disagree with how you did your taxes.

 

[Faun]

The complaint itself is hypocritical. It complains that state courts can't change laws governing elections but simultaneously asks the SCOTUS to suspend laws governing safe harbor and the meeting of the electoral college.

Courts are not supposed to change laws. That is a function of the legislature.

Only commie marxist globalists want to rule a nation through the courts, just like they did in Nazi Germany for illegitimate Hitler. Joe Biden is illegitimate and is a Senile Puppet of China, Big Tech, and Russia, The UN and should not be allowed within 200 yards of The White House ever.

LOLOL

Stumpy, the Texas lawsuit is asking for the SCOTUS to extend the Dec. 14 deadline for certification of presidential electors, i.e., change the law. Which they can't do.

Glad to see even you think this lawsuit is bogus, even if you still don't know why you think that.

 

[Faun]

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.

TX and 18 other states disagree. we will see what the SCOTUS says and i'm fine with that.

you keep whining about it, it's what you do.

They're going to say, fuck off, but in judicial vernacular.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Even worse, they used the provisions from act 77 in the primaries and no one objected then.

Republicans literally waited until there was an election where they didn't like the results to try and change the results based on a law Republicans put into place to take away a victory from Democrats to give to Republicans.

Why would Republicans object to a primarty that didn't affect them? That's a bogus argument, just like all your other arguments.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

They aren't asking for excuses.
The Constitution is clear ... And no one gives a shit if a State cannot figure out how to follow their own laws correctly.
It's not a wild goose chase ... There is a case to be made.

It's not that these states, like Michigan, cannot figure out how to follow their own laws.
The Secretary of State there just didn't bother to involve the state legislature when she unilaterally
changed state election law. She was taking her guidance from other sources.

"Benson has received the endorsement and financial assistance of the Secretary of State Project (SOS Project), a 527 political organization whose purpose, according to its website, was to "wrestling control of the country from the Republican Party" through the process of "removing their political operatives from deciding who can vote and whose votes will count," namely the office of Secretary of State in many cases. The SOS Project received its funding from the George Soros-backed Democracy Alliance." Jocelyn Benson - Ballotpedia

 

[Toro]

You have to realize how Full Retard "conservatives" have become, and who are nothing more than Trump cultists for defending this garbage.

According to the lawsuit, states have the right to sue other states for how they implemented their elections. Let's look at it if the shoe was on the other foot.

Harris County TX had 12 drop-boxes for voters. Gov Abbot by EO limited the number of drop-boxes to one per county. That was challenged in TX state court, and the suit was dismissed by the TX SC.

Let's say CA thinks this is voter suppression, and decides to sue TX in the SCOTUS, saying the SCOTUS should throw all of the votes in TX out. Then all the other liberal states joined the lawsuit.

How do you think Trump's supporters would react? Do you think they'd say "Yes! CA has the right to interfere in TX's election!"

No, of course not. They'd be going bananas, claiming that CA was trying to disenfranchise people. And they'd be right.

But because they are in a cult, and believe anything their Orange God and the slavish alt-right media tells them, they think this has merit.

Conservatives used to be against judicial activism. This is judicial activism.

But contradictions never bother people in a cult.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.​

Just one more example of traitorous Republicans trying to overturn an election and install their candidate.

Wow, a moral condemnation from the poster girl for the party of election fraud and disenfranchisement. You'll excuse me if I don't cry myself to sleep at night for not having the good opinion of someone I wouldn't piss on if she were on fire.

With all due respect, I really wouldn't want you pissing on me, for any reason.

Now please feel free to get back to your non-stop marathon attempt to overturn a legitimate and legal election solely because your guy lost. Republican Refraudlican.

With all due respect - meaning not a single iota - I don't need or want your permission to stand against your desire to destroy the country while pretending you're doing something noble.

But you have my permission to get back to denying your approval to people who didn't ask for it, wouldn't take it, and laugh at the idea that you have any authority to approve of anything.

 

[Faun]

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.

Even worse, they used the provisions from act 77 in the primaries and no one objected then.

Republicans literally waited until there was an election where they didn't like the results to try and change the results based on a law Republicans put into place to take away a victory from Democrats to give to Republicans.

Why would Republicans object to a primarty that didn't affect them? That's a bogus argument, just like all your other arguments.

LOLOLOLOL

You're such a fucking moron, you don't even realize you just propped up my point in a 24K golden frame.



Fucking moron, if it was unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if it's Democrats or Republicans. If it was unconstitutional, it would have been unconstitutional for all political parties.

Here you are, accentuating my point that Republicans waited until there was an election which they lost to raise this issue -- which, by the way, was one of the reason Republicans lost this case. You can't sit on a lawsuit until it's politically expedient. Google doctrine of laches to get educated.

 

[Toro]

Here you are, accentuating my point that Republicans waited until there was an election which they lost to raise this issue -- which, by the way, was one of the reason Republicans lost this case. You can't sit on a lawsuit until it's politically expedient. Google doctrine of laches to get educated.

That's one of the many problems with this lawsuit, and many others.

They're not concerned about the law. If they were, they would have challenged it in court long before the election. But they didn't.