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

[postman]

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

Pennsylvania election results 2020: Live results by county

Pennsylvania results for the 2020 presidential election and House races. Get live polls and voting maps by county and district.

www.nbcnews.com

Pennsylvania, which postponed its primary elections from April 28 to June 2 due to the coronavirus outbreak, offers the biggest prize of the night for Democrats with 186 delegates. The state has expanded the use of mail-in voting, though polling locations will also be open.

Presidential primary results

Biden - 1,264,624

Trump - 1,053,616

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

But contradictions never bother people in a cult.

Who has sued Texas? Could your post be any more irrelevant? I doubt it.

It's just some more pre-bitching and whining from those losers that want their fraud and cheating upheld and this'election to stay good and stole.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Secretary of State there just didn't bother to involve the state legislature when she unilaterally
changed state election law.

What law did she change and when was it changed?

 

[postman]

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.

It also foretold the future. Biden got more votes than Trump in the Pennsylvania primary.

Biden - 1,264,624

Trump - 1,053,616

 

[postman]

Who has sued Texas? Could your post be any more irrelevant? I doubt it.

It's just some more pre-bitching and whining from those losers that want their fraud and cheating upheld and this'election to stay good and stole.

He has a point. The liberal states should sue states like Texas for voter suppression. That effectively increases the voting power of the individual Texan, beyond the voting power of individual people in other states.

Conservatives should cheer.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

Thanks for demonstrating what a desperate, stupid "genius" you are. The first thing a court looks for
in any law suit is damage done to a plaintiff.

There was no damage before the election! That pile of leaves and branches and cardboard in your
neighbor's yard is not actionable before it catches fire and burns your fence and garage down..

Keep yakking! Show off your mighty brain power some more.

 

[postman]

The next big lawsuit, I propose. Make "open" primaries illegal. It effectively disenfranchises the partisan votes from the other states.

Primaries are supposed to be for voters of a particular party, giving their preferences. In an open primary people of the opposite party can literally vote to cancel out the partisan vote.

Ex: republicans could have voted for Hillary in 2016, pushing her ahead of Bernie Sanders, who may have been the democrats actual choice.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

He has a point. The liberal states should sue states like Texas for voter suppression. That effectively increases the voting power of the individual Texan, beyond the voting power of individual people in other states.

Conservatives should cheer.

I don't think so. If fact if anything it's California that suppresses the voting rights of it's citizens
through motor voter laws and illegal immigrants voting nullifying votes of lawful citizens and hence, Texas is
threatened and their voters disenfranchised also.

Voter nullification and suppression is precisely why California tries to open up it's elections to as many
non citizens as possible. It's a rat's nest of corruption.
Of course they never admit that's that they do. They just make it so easy for everyone to vote in California.
And they make NO effort to stop anyone.
But thanks for dropping by.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

If GA can do it, then why can't SCOTUS?

 

[colfax_m]

If GA can do it, then why can't SCOTUS?

Kind of a paradox. The lawsuit says GA can’t. If the lawsuit is correct, then it asks the court to do the very thing it said it can’t do.

 

[bripat9643]

If GA can do it, then why can't SCOTUS?

Kind of a paradox. The lawsuit says GA can’t. If the lawsuit is correct, then it asks the court to do the very thing it said it can’t do.

The lawsuit says the SOS or the governor cannot unilaterally change GA election law, moron. It doesn't say GA can't change its election law.

 

[postman]

If fact if anything it's California that suppresses the voting rights of it's citizens
through motor voter laws and illegal immigrants voting nullifying votes of lawful citizens and hence, Texas is
threatened and their voters disenfranchised also.

But thanks for dropping by.

You were making sense, all the way up to:
and hence, Texas is
threatened and their voters disenfranchised also.

Your claim that California votes "disenfranchise" texas votes is ridiculous. You're just pointing out that a state with millions more people, gets more votes.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It also foretold the future. Biden got more votes than Trump in the Pennsylvania primary.

Biden - 1,264,624

Trump - 1,053,616

Yeah, it fortold the future because it was subject to massive fraud and they didn't hae a result until weeks after election day.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

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.

It also foretold the future. Biden got more votes than Trump in the Pennsylvania primary.

Biden - 1,264,624

Trump - 1,053,616

This is a joke right? Trump was the incumbent who had no opponents in the primary. Yet he received historically high primary votes across the country. In previous primaries incumbent presidents regularly receive less votes than candidates from the opposing party, for example, Romney received more votes in the Republican primary than Obama (incumbent) for the Democrats.

 

[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.

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.

Who said it wasn't unconstitutional for all political parties? It was just as unconstitutional then as it is now. The only difference is that republicans didn't file suit then. There's no requirement to file such a suit at a specific time, moron. Your objection is that it should be ruled constitutional because Republicans didn't care if the DNC fucked its own constituents. That's not a legitimate basis for throwing a lawsuit out, you fucking dumbass.

 

[colfax_m]

The lawsuit says the SOS or the governor cannot unilaterally change GA election law, moron. It doesn't say GA can't change its election law.

The lawsuit asks the SCOTUS to unilaterally change federal election law. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[bripat9643]

The lawsuit says the SOS or the governor cannot unilaterally change GA election law, moron. It doesn't say GA can't change its election law.

The lawsuit asks the SCOTUS to unilaterally change federal election law. Ironic, isn't it?

What federal election law?

 

[colfax_m]

The lawsuit says the SOS or the governor cannot unilaterally change GA election law, moron. It doesn't say GA can't change its election law.

The lawsuit asks the SCOTUS to unilaterally change federal election law. Ironic, isn't it?

What federal election law?

3 USC 5 and 7

 

[bripat9643]

The lawsuit says the SOS or the governor cannot unilaterally change GA election law, moron. It doesn't say GA can't change its election law.

The lawsuit asks the SCOTUS to unilaterally change federal election law. Ironic, isn't it?

What federal election law?

3 USC 5 and 7

No one is trying to change it, moron.

 

[colfax_m]

The lawsuit says the SOS or the governor cannot unilaterally change GA election law, moron. It doesn't say GA can't change its election law.

The lawsuit asks the SCOTUS to unilaterally change federal election law. Ironic, isn't it?

What federal election law?

3 USC 5 and 7

No one is trying to change it, moron.

From their lawsuit:

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.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf