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

[meaner gene]

Asymptomatic is not the same thing as immune, moron.

Of course immunity is asymptomatic.

Do you remember this one?

Yes. They are both true. I find it hilarious to discover that you are so stupid that you believe that's a contradiction.

You failed logic.
You said immune equals asymptomatic
And then asymptomatic doesn't equal immune
Meaning there are asymptomatic people who suffer from the effects of covid.

 

[BlindBoo]

But first you must ignore the established law and order of the State and Federal Courts who rule by precedent. Also you must ignore the established State and Federal election laws to disallow the certified votes and substitute and alternate slate of electors that favor the Loser of the popular vote in all 4 states as well as the entire nation.

The goal is one party rule.

One party rule IS the goal...for the democrats. That's why they are already planning to pack the courts, end filibusters, add more states to gain more senators and seats in Congress, etc.
AOC has already said her goal, and that of her followers, is to rule without being forced to deal with the republican party.

She's a demagogue. Look the word up. She's not where she wants to be...yet! But she and her party is working on it. Stealing the presidential election in front of the eyes of the nation is a good first step.

We aren't bound by precedent and your lies when an election like this is stolen. Hypocritical fuckers
want to cling to law and order appeals after stealing the presidency.
The Supreme Court is now in play.

Trumpybears Banana Republicans are the Frankenstein Faux News created. Then, it ate Faux News.

We'll soon know how the High Court feels about precedent and baseless hyperbolic subversive accusations that are striking at the 50 Democratic elections that are the heart of our Union.

 

[BlindBoo]

When did you cite your source on the Supreme Court saying "a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials?"

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

The actual text


Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting ...
www.supremecourt.gov › opinions

Jun 29, 2015 — The Elections Clause and 2 U. S. C. §2a(c) permit Arizona's use of a commission to adopt congressional districts. Pp. 15–35. (a) Redistricting is ...

So the SC would need to vastly narrow is interruption, which would effect all 50 States who have used the broad interruption to make their election laws.


So it's N.F.L.

 

[bripat9643]

When did you cite your source on the Supreme Court saying "a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials?"

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

The actual text


Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting ...
www.supremecourt.gov › opinions

Jun 29, 2015 — The Elections Clause and 2 U. S. C. §2a(c) permit Arizona's use of a commission to adopt congressional districts. Pp. 15–35. (a) Redistricting is ...

​

One unusual feature of the Elections Clause is that it does not confer the power to regulate congressional elections on states as a whole, but rather the “Legislature” of each state. The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures. ​

It does allow voters to make election laws, but not governors, judges or other government officials who don't have lawmaking power, which means all of them.

 

[Pogo]

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.​

Yuh huh.

And just HOW exactly is Texas "injured" by what the fuck some other state is doing? Hm?

The reference Article II Section 1 Clause 2 reads, and we know it well by now:

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<

Read it again --- "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". Not "in such Manner as the AG of Frickin' Texas may direct".

This clown should be disbarred.

So tell the class, where does it say the State SOS can enter into a consent decree and alter what the legislature directed? Dumb fucking commie.

Maybe this post comes in English.

Maybe not.

Poor commie, did I use too many big words? LMAO.

Sorry Tovarich, I don't speak 1949. Today we use what we call "verbs".

But hey, if you wish to remain oblique, have fun.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Trumpybears Banana Republicans are the Frankenstein Faux News created. Then, it ate Faux News.

No actual commentary needed here.

We'll soon know how the High Court feels about precedent and baseless hyperbolic subversive accusations that are striking at the 50 Democratic elections that are the heart of our Union.

Be careful you don't pull a muscle grasping so vociferously and vehemently at straws.

There are only four states (4 states...four) being sued by Texas (though Arizona and Nevada could have
probably been included in that suit).
Dragging the other forty-six states into this is typically disingenuous of you.

The Constitution says election law must not be changed at the relative last moment and changes such as
these are only to be made by state legislators in order to achieve that desired effect,

Speaking of "baseless hyperbolic subversive accusations" your post is absurd and fact free, like all your other posts. Just sayin'.

 

[meaner gene]

The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power.

It does allow voters to make election laws, but not governors, judges or other government officials who don't have lawmaking power, which means all of them.

It also gives lawmaking power to the governor during an emergency, example: Connecticut

Further, under § 28-9(1), the governor may suspend or modify—for up to six months—any part of a law, regulation or requirement “in conflict” with the “efficient and expeditious” execution of civil preparedness or public health protection.

Note: may modify any part of a law

That's lawmaking power by very definition.

 

[Care4all]

Violations of Election Law:

The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.

The SOS said this is FALSE.... He presented the law and his case, and won I believe, but might be on appeal.


PA supreme court changed existing deadline for receiving mail-in ballots from 8:00 PM on the day of election to 3 days after the election and adopted a presumption that non-postmarked ballots be considered as valid.

The US Supreme court ruled on it. The voters could vote by mail thru election day...but they were separated in case they were disputed at a later time.

Citizens in the State, voted via absentee theu election day BECAUSE the Supreme court, ruled they could.

Some states gave 9 days to get to them....every state is different.


Election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties did not follow state law permitting poll-watchers to be present for the opening, counting, and recording of mail-in ballots.

That was proven, in court, FALSE. Only 1 poll watcher from each party, R, D, I are allowed at polling vote count station. Those slots were all filled, no other poll watchers could be in those slots.


The Secretary of State directed election officials to remove ballots before 7:00 AM on the day of election in order to “cure” defective mail-in ballots. This was done only in Democrat majority counties.

The courts ruled on this in appeal, and basically it did not break their law or constitution to cure ballots in one county or another, counties manage their own elections, and the PA election law describes how and what to check, but does not state those votes not meeting muster SHALL BE discarded or SHALL NOT be cured... or something of the sort, if memories serve?

Regardless, they ruled it was NOT illegal... it did NOT usurp legislative power.

( and if anyone should be admonished it's those counties not trying to ensure their citizen's constitutional right to vote, by giving them a way to cure their ballot that is being discarded for simply missing a hand written date....in many cases)


Election officials did not segregate ballots received after 8:00 PM on election day breaking the promise made to the U.S. Supreme Court thus making it impossible to identify or remove those ballots

FALSE
They did segregate the ballots received after 8pm election night, ordered by the Secretary of state before Alito told them to.

 

[meaner gene]

There are only four states (4 states...four) being sued by Texas (though Arizona and Nevada could have
probably been included in that suit).
Dragging the other forty-six states into this is typically disingenuous of you.

His point stands. If one state can object to another state (or states) not following what they interpret as their election law, then any state can sue each and every state they view as not following their election law.

If the supreme court grants certiorari in the texas case, they open the door to 50 states suing 50 states.

 

[bripat9643]

When did you cite your source on the Supreme Court saying "a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials?"

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

The actual text


Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting ...
www.supremecourt.gov › opinions

Jun 29, 2015 — The Elections Clause and 2 U. S. C. §2a(c) permit Arizona's use of a commission to adopt congressional districts. Pp. 15–35. (a) Redistricting is ...

So the SC would need to vastly narrow is interruption, which would effect all 50 States who have used the broad interruption to make their election laws.


So it's N.F.L.

The "broad interpretation" doesn't allow governors, SOSs or judges to change election law, turd. It only allows voters to change it in states with referendums.

 

[bripat9643]

The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power.

It does allow voters to make election laws, but not governors, judges or other government officials who don't have lawmaking power, which means all of them.

It also gives lawmaking power to the governor during an emergency, example: Connecticut

Further, under § 28-9(1), the governor may suspend or modify—for up to six months—any part of a law, regulation or requirement “in conflict” with the “efficient and expeditious” execution of civil preparedness or public health protection.

Note: may modify any part of a law

That's lawmaking power by very definition.

It remains to be seen whether that applies to election law.

 

[bripat9643]

There are only four states (4 states...four) being sued by Texas (though Arizona and Nevada could have
probably been included in that suit).
Dragging the other forty-six states into this is typically disingenuous of you.

His point stands. If one state can object to another state (or states) not following what they interpret as their election law, then any state can sue each and every state they view as not following their election law.

If the supreme court grants certiorari in the texas case, they open the door to 50 states suing 50 states.

So? They already do sue each other on other subjects.

 

[BlindBoo]

The "broad interpretation" doesn't allow governors, SOSs or judges to change election law, turd. It only allows voters to change it in states with referendums.

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

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

There are only four states (4 states...four) being sued by Texas (though Arizona and Nevada could have
probably been included in that suit).

So the SC would need to vastly narrow is interruption, which would effect all 50 States who have used the broad interruption to make their election laws.

 

[meaner gene]

Further, under § 28-9(1), the governor may suspend or modify—for up to six months—any part of a law, regulation or requirement “in conflict” with the “efficient and expeditious” execution of civil preparedness or public health protection.

It remains to be seen whether that applies to election law.

As long as those changes to the law do not conflict with the election clause, which things like early voting, extending deadlines or voting hours, do not.

 

[meaner gene]

If the supreme court grants certiorari in the texas case, they open the door to 50 states suing 50 states.

So? They already do sue each other on other subjects.

This is a state suing another state because they disagree with how that states courts interpret their own laws and their own constitution.

There is no requirement that a state enforce a law, only that it be enforced on an equal basis.

 

[meaner gene]

So the SC would need to vastly narrow is interruption, which would effect all 50 States who have used the broad interruption to make their election laws.

This is exampled by the USSC letting stand the Pennsylvania supreme court adding three days to the deadline for absentee ballots.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't remember anyone plotting to overthrow Trump. I don't remember them spying on Trump.

I remember there being LOTS of contacts between Trump associates and Russian intelligence agents... including meetings where digging up dirt and releasing it was discussed. I remember 40+ indictments and a number of these conspirators being jailed. I remember Trump pardoning one after he plead guilty.

Certainly more in jail from that GOOD investigation than any other.

If I were Trump I would have disavowed those individuals and cheered on the investigation for pushing back on Russian interference.

But that's just me.

Fortunately, reality and the knowledge of the rest of us is not dependent on your memory and what your masters have allowed to you put in it. Leftists "remember" a lot of things that didn't happen, and draw a blank on what actually did, based on what their talking points were.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

So the SC would need to vastly narrow is interruption, which would effect all 50 States who have used the broad interruption to make their election laws.

The Supreme Court is faithfully following the Constitution in saying states that want to amend their election laws need to go through their own legislatures to keep from tailoring their laws for short term partisan gains
as Pennsylvania did...,which sort of undermines the whole pretense that Pennsylvania just wants a free fair
election.

Assuming the SC isn't contradicting the Constitution itself, and I see no evidence of that, aside from the Gang of Four, I see no states unilaterally tailoring their election laws (the way Michigan did) for political gain.

 

[Pappadave1]

When one State violates its own constitution AND the U.S. Constitution in order to give one political party advantage over the other, that disenfranchises the voters in other States who do not do such things. In this case, FOUR States did precisely that which allowed vote fraud to skew the election results nationwide.

 

[meaner gene]

Fortunately, reality and the knowledge of the rest of us is not dependent on your memory and what your masters have allowed to you put in it. Leftists "remember" a lot of things that didn't happen, and draw a blank on what actually did, based on what their talking points were.

You left out Trump "remembering" thousands of people celebrating 9-11 in New Jersey.