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.
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.
It's only "absurd" to desperate liars hanging on by fingernails.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.
Stupid. And it misses the point. But keep going. You can get stupider still.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.
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.
Stupid. And it misses the point. But keep going. You can get stupider still.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.
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.
Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
You bluff so well.Or....anyone with an even casual understanding of how the law works.
Wow. Very ironic, indeed.Or.....you just have no idea what you're talking about.
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.
Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
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.
Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.you would do better if you read it first,,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.
Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
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.
Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.you would do better if you read it first,,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.
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.
Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
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.
Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
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.
Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.
Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.
This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.
No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.
There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.
Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER
The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.
I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.
it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.
And you can state this without any fear of contradiction? You might as well shoot for the moon whenThere have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
That's the issue, isn't it. If Michigan, Pennsylvania etc. illegally change their election lawsTexas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
then take it up with texas and stop whining in here.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.
Seems Texas has plenty of proof. Lets see what the Texas Supreme Court does. I'd say the SC will be getting the case, how bout you??
The Texas Supreme Court? What relevance would the Texas Supreme Court have for votes in another State?
They are the ones issuing the charges which they have the right to do. From what I've read those states didn't follow the Constitution in relation to ballots and mail in ballots. Its in another thread. Look it up.
The Texas Supreme Court has no right to issue 'charges'. They are an appeals court.
And the Texas Supreme Court has no right to issue 'charges' on other States. They are an appeals court exclusive to the State of Texas.
And you can state this without any fear of contradiction? You might as well shoot for the moon whenThere have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.
you lie.
That's the issue, isn't it. If Michigan, Pennsylvania etc. illegally change their election lawsTexas doesn't have a say in other states laws.
and it adversely effects other states and perverts the outcome of a presidential election then Texas, as well as all other states have been deprived of equal protection under the law.
The Phillies don't get to give themselves an extra strike when playing the Astros.
Why not think about that for awhile until the realization of your pathetic ignorance sinks in.
then take it up with texas and stop whining in here.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.
Seems Texas has plenty of proof. Lets see what the Texas Supreme Court does. I'd say the SC will be getting the case, how bout you??
The Texas Supreme Court? What relevance would the Texas Supreme Court have for votes in another State?
They are the ones issuing the charges which they have the right to do. From what I've read those states didn't follow the Constitution in relation to ballots and mail in ballots. Its in another thread. Look it up.
The Texas Supreme Court has no right to issue 'charges'. They are an appeals court.
And the Texas Supreme Court has no right to issue 'charges' on other States. They are an appeals court exclusive to the State of Texas.
and what are the credentials of "we" that we should consider their opinion???no need to read a thing if all you are going to do is discredit it.you would do better if you read it first,,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.
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.
Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.
The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.
The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.
The issues of extensions and the process of mail in voting varied from State to State. Texas is making a blanket suit encompassing all of them, making general accusations that aren't tailored to the specific conditions on the individual states they are trying to fold into the suit
just say THEY CAN'T DO THAT a thousand times.
Can't do what?
The Supreme Court hasn't granted a writ. We're explaining why.
