SC Patriot
Diamond Member
- Aug 31, 2020
- 2,990
- 2,442
- 1,938
well said, but I believe you may be wrong. It seems to me that this suit is not asking SCOTUS to change laws. It is asking them to interpret law. One can apply an executive order. But not if it is in direct conflict of written law. Does it apply here? I dont know. Neither do you. Based on your post, you are obviously intelligent. I believe I am as well...(although my wife calls me a dumbass but I regress).. But do either of us know constitutional law as the justices do? I doubt it. Let them decide. It may not be a valid suit. I really dont know. But with my limited knowledge of constitutional law, I believe it is worthy of consideration. My biggest concern is what kind of precedent will be set if the SCOTUS allows governors to "change" law. That can be very scary for all of us.Honestly, the suit is about a great many things. Paxton didn't really engage in any editing, preferring instead to throw the spaghetti at the wall.My guess is you didnt.You should have read the lawsuit. Don't blame me for your ignorance.They state a lot of things “might” have happened and that “might” somehow is sufficient reason to rewrite election law or trash the constitutional rights of people who voted in our Republic.Yeah, you’ll forgive us if after these allegations have been slapped down in literally dozens of lawsuits that we are getting a little sick of this shit.I must have hit a nerve. All the usual suspects came stampeding out of the barn like it was on fire.
What the Texas lawsuit states happened
Did happen, that is not in dispute
Will the court, follow the law.
Never know with courts and juries.
Nope
I know exactly what the suit is about.
Do you?
18 States feel their citizens votes were offset by the votes of 4 states where the legislative body of those states did not change the law. Instead the governors and the courts of that state allowed for the change of the law.
That is unconstitutional and truth is, will set a really bad precedent for our future.
A governor is responsible to enforce state law. A court is responsible to ensure the law is constitutional. Neither body has the right to change the law. Only lawmakers have that right.
Curious....there is a 6-3 right leaning SCOTUS.....more likely 5-4 seeing as Roberts is more in the middle leaning left.
Would you be OK with that court changing laws?
I wouldn't be...even though I am a conservative.
In a lot of instances of this supposed unconstitutional change, they're flatly wrong. In a lot of instances, the law was silent about certain procedures or policies and that therefore goes to the state's executive to implement laws with their discretion in such ambiguity. In other instances, the state's laws were determined to be unconstitutional and the courts ruled that the election law had to be changed as a result. In other instances, the governor used delegated authorities by emergency powers to alter state regulations in the setting of a pandemic.
Other states did this too, such as Texas, however they're not asking to have the courts take away their electoral votes because they voted for Trump. No, only four states who voted for Biden are being targeted.
This isn't about constitutionality and principle, it's about virtue signaling to Trump supporters. If it were about principle, there would be a lot more states named in the lawsuit.
If you are against the court's changing laws, then you should know that this VERY lawsuit is asking the SCOTUS to change the laws. So much for consistency.