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

[Claudette]

This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.

Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.

Good luck with that.

So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.

So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.

So where is the violation?

The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.

Why are you so scared of all this?

So no violation. That was easy.

And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems.....wildly unlikely.

The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.

Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.

Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???

The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.

Texas found them easily enough. Guess the State was covering their ass. What say you??

Texas doesn't adjudicate the State laws of other states.

So no, Texas didn't 'find them'.

Of course Texas found them. That's why they are suing. Jeeze your one thick headed lefty loon.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No, it isn't. The Supreme can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.

Right .... the Supreme Court will just ignore this all like it never happened.

A you stay a real fucking dim bulb to the end. I love it.

 

[Claudette]

This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.

Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.

Good luck with that.

So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.

So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.

So where is the violation?

The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.

Why are you so scared of all this?

So no violation. That was easy.

And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems.....wildly unlikely.

The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.

Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.

Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???

The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.

You are very, very stupid but you will come to see there is nothing you can do to stop this matter,
It's something only the SC can rule on. One state is suing five other states over matters of
Constitutional law (electors clause).

I love watching worms like you squirm around. Keep it up.

No, it isn't. The Supreme Court can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.

You can always hope but I doubt the SC will overlook unconstitutional behavior during an election.

 

[Skylar]

This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.

Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.

Good luck with that.

So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.

So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.

So where is the violation?

The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.

Why are you so scared of all this?

So no violation. That was easy.

And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems.....wildly unlikely.

The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.

Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.

Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???

The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.

Texas found them easily enough. Guess the State was covering their ass. What say you??

Texas doesn't adjudicate the State laws of other states.

So no, Texas didn't 'find them'.

Of course Texas found them. That's why they are suing. Jeeze your one thick headed lefty loon.

And Texas lacks standing and jurisdiction. Their legal assessment of OTHER state rulings is legally meaningless. As they have no authority over any election laws but their own.

The issues have been with parties that have standing, and courts that have jurisdiction. No violations were ever found.

 

[Claudette]

No, it isn't. The Supreme can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.

Right .... the Supreme Court will just ignore this all like it never happened.

Jesus he's thick. LOL

 

[Skylar]

This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.

Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.

Good luck with that.

So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.

So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.

So where is the violation?

The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.

Why are you so scared of all this?

So no violation. That was easy.

And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems.....wildly unlikely.

The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.

Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.

Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???

The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.

You are very, very stupid but you will come to see there is nothing you can do to stop this matter,
It's something only the SC can rule on. One state is suing five other states over matters of
Constitutional law (electors clause).

I love watching worms like you squirm around. Keep it up.

No, it isn't. The Supreme Court can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.

You can always hope but I doubt the SC will overlook unconstitutional behavior during an election.

What unconstitutional behavior?

 

[martybegan]

This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.

Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.

Good luck with that.

So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.

So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.

So where is the violation?

The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.

Why are you so scared of all this?

So no violation. That was easy.

And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems.....wildly unlikely.

The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.

Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.

The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.

That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.

Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.

And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.

It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.

Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.

 

[Skylar]

No, it isn't. The Supreme can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.

Right .... the Supreme Court will just ignore this all like it never happened.

The Supreme Court denies certiorari to almost all cases it is asked to review.

Which given the absurdity of the suit, is the most likely outcome for Texas' suit as well.

 

[martybegan]

This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.

Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.

Good luck with that.

So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.

So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.

So where is the violation?

The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.

Why are you so scared of all this?

So no violation. That was easy.

And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems.....wildly unlikely.

The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.

Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.

Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???

The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.

Texas found them easily enough. Guess the State was covering their ass. What say you??

Texas doesn't adjudicate the State laws of other states.

So no, Texas didn't 'find them'.

Texas has standing as the US constitution requires the State legislatures to handle the selection process for electors, executives and judges in some States decided to do things on their own.

 

[Claudette]

This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.

Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.

Good luck with that.

So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.

So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.

So where is the violation?

The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.

Why are you so scared of all this?

So no violation. That was easy.

And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems.....wildly unlikely.

The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.

Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.

Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???

The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.

You are very, very stupid but you will come to see there is nothing you can do to stop this matter,
It's something only the SC can rule on. One state is suing five other states over matters of
Constitutional law (electors clause).

I love watching worms like you squirm around. Keep it up.

No, it isn't. The Supreme Court can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.

You can always hope but I doubt the SC will overlook unconstitutional behavior during an election.

What unconstitutional behavior?

Holy shit. Find the thread and read it. Its lists every one of them. Good God.

 

[Cecilie1200]

GREAT!!

Now the SCOTUS has to take this up.

Well, no, they don't HAVE to, technically speaking. But it definitely ratchets up the pressure on them to address this issue.

 

[martybegan]

This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.

Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.

Good luck with that.

So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.

So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.

So where is the violation?

The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.

Why are you so scared of all this?

So no violation. That was easy.

And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems.....wildly unlikely.

The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.

Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.

Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???

The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.

You are very, very stupid but you will come to see there is nothing you can do to stop this matter,
It's something only the SC can rule on. One state is suing five other states over matters of
Constitutional law (electors clause).

I love watching worms like you squirm around. Keep it up.

No, it isn't. The Supreme Court can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.

That doesn't mean Texas lacks standing.

 

[Skylar]

This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.

Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.

Good luck with that.

So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.

So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.

So where is the violation?

The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.

Why are you so scared of all this?

So no violation. That was easy.

And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems.....wildly unlikely.

The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.

Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.

The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.

That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.

Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.

And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.

It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.

Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.

If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.

The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.

Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you bootlickers really think that the SCOTUS is going to overrule state law to turn over the election process to the state legislatures, you’re out of your fucking minds

Here's your lesson on the US Constitution:


Not only has it been decided in the US Supreme Court that only the state legislature, and not any court, may alter or set the dates, but this played an important role in the 2000 Gore v Bush case.



“U.S. Supreme Court

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)

McPherson v. Blacker
Agued Oct. 11, 1892 Decided Oct. 17, 1892



“The validity of a state law providing for the appointment of electors of President and Vice President having been drawn in question before the highest tribunal of a state as repugnant to the laws and Constitution of the United States, and that court having decided in favor of its validity, this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment under Rev.Stat. § 709. Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.



Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.”

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)

supreme.justia.com





The Supreme Court should require that no ballots received beyond the 5 o’clock deadline of election day be counted.

 

[Billiejeens]

Who was it that kept saying
Equal protection clause
See- Bush v Gore

Oh yeah
That was me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.

There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and federal judges have said they have provided no proof.

Except that, if you check Texas's suit, they're not talking about fraud at all. They're suing on the basis of actions taken by courts and elected officials which are easily proven.

The US Supreme Court IS a court which can rule on issues of the US Consitution being violated. In fact, they are THE court to rule on that.

 

[Skylar]

This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.

Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.

Good luck with that.

So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.

So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.

So where is the violation?

The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.

Why are you so scared of all this?

So no violation. That was easy.

And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems.....wildly unlikely.

The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.

Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.

Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???

The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.

You are very, very stupid but you will come to see there is nothing you can do to stop this matter,
It's something only the SC can rule on. One state is suing five other states over matters of
Constitutional law (electors clause).

I love watching worms like you squirm around. Keep it up.

No, it isn't. The Supreme Court can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.

That doesn't mean Texas lacks standing.

Of course it lacks standing. The only parties with standing in such a suit....would be the State legislatures themselves. If say, the State legislature of Pennsylvania were to file suit, then standing wouldn't be a problem.

But *Texas*, on behalf of the people of Texas, about elections in Georgia?

Nope. Its just more theater for dipshits.

 

[martybegan]

This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.

Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.

Good luck with that.

So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.

So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.

So where is the violation?

The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.

Why are you so scared of all this?

So no violation. That was easy.

And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems.....wildly unlikely.

The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.

Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.

The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.

That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.

Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.

And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.

It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.

Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.

If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.

The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.

Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.

Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.

Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?

All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.

 

[BlindBoo]

Harrisburg, PA – Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with voter-friendly election reforms.

The law creates a new option to vote by mail up to 50 days before an election and be placed on a list to permanently receive a ballot application by mail. It also provides more time to register to vote and authorizes a $90 million bond to help counties fund the purchase of new voting systems with a paper trail that strengthens the security of our elections.

“This bill makes voting more convenient and more secure for millions of Pennsylvanians and continues my commitment to modernizing our elections,” said Governor Wolf. “This is the biggest change to our elections in generations and will strengthen our democracy by removing barriers to the voting booth and encouraging more people to vote. I applaud all of the legislators and stakeholders for their work with my administration and their spirit of compromise.”

Governor Wolf Signs Election Reform Bill Including New Mail-in Voting

Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with...

www.governor.pa.gov

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The Supreme Court denies certiorari to almost all cases it is asked to review.

Which given the absurdity of the suit, is the most likely outcome for Texas' suit as well.

It's only "absurd" to desperate liars hanging on by fingernails.

This is one state suing four others over a matter of basic constitutional law.

It has Supreme Court written all over it. This is about one state disenfranchising citizens of all other
states. Not a chance they will ignore this vastly important issue.