The Texas lawsuit and the possible end of our republic.

[Billiejeens]

So you want the court to hand over the election to trump correct? Not a redo, no chance for the other side. I am soooooooooooooo happy I don't align myself with either party. It feels soooo patriotic.

No, we want them to force a revote in the fraudulent States. A vote watched veeeery carefully where no bullshit is allowed to happen.

No chance

 

[SC Patriot]

A president cannot make an appropriation.

But Trump did. Congress never approved his little border wall.

They didn't have to. Why? There was no law against a wall and he was able to use the ACoE to build the wall and use their funds. Just as Obama used those funds to build holding cells on the border in 2014.

 

[SC Patriot]

It's a non sequitur.

A non sequitur is a statement with no logical connection.

The problem here is your lack of logic.

What's the logical connection?

Extraconstitutional legislation by executives.

There is a novel idea.
Good luck with that.
Why have a constitution?

 

[bodecea]

I'm not going to bothering reading the thread ... looks like the same vomit from yesterday ...

Anyone dared comment on the merits of the case yet? ... the OP is crazy wrong ... if we let Texas dictate how Michigan interprets their own laws ... pfffft ... worst, allow Texas to go straight to SCOTUS ... well ... then ... er ...

What's to stop California from telling Mississippi how to run their education system? ... and going straight to SCOTUS with the complaint ...

No ... I didn';t think anyone wanted to discuss this matter honestly ... sorry for interrupting ...

This is what annoys me the worst. I know this is a Hail Mary and it has no chance of overturning the election, but the fact that Texas even had a path to take this directly to the SC with 1) no successful lower court rulings, and 2) Able to file a lawsuit that essentially is looking to interfere in another states' affairs....is a complete travesty.

So you have no idea about how multiple state issues are resolved. It goes directly to the supreme court. Always. Always. Always.
You are not worthy of adding to this conversation as you are naive as to how a republic works.

FYI....we are a republic.

I laugh at those that attempt to debate and say things that are not factually correct. Its like "Rachel Maddow said this so I can regirgitate it
There IS no issue, snowflake. That's the point. This is frivolous. Texas has NO standing to question another state's process. They suffered no harm.
So do me a favor and stow your upturned nose. I don't give a shit.

Oh. I see. A state voted legally, and their electoral college votes are offset by a state that votes against the constitution. Got it.
Good for you.

So what you're really trying to say here is that state's DON'T have the right to make their own laws. Again, selective interpretation. So much for that yellowed scrap of paper.
Texas wasn't harmed therefore has no standing to bring the suit...unless you are postulating that because Texas voted for Trump, these other states have to as well.

Uh...excuse me. I never said that. States get to make their own laws. Always. Governors and judges do not have the right to change those laws according to the constitution. Only LAW MAKERS do.
Know your stuff before you debate.

No chance

This really isn't going to happen.

You guys really need to calm down. Go out and get some air. Spend the day in a forest with no cell phone.

Yep, just let the cheating happen, after all Progs know what's best for us because we don't.

Yep, just let the cheating happen, after all Progs know what's best for us because we don't.

Cheating?
All 50 governors have certified their election results.

Yes. All states certified the results. I expected that. The question is, should states have their electoral college numbers offset by states that had non law makers change their election laws? And 18 governors and AG's are protecting their state citizens from having their vote offset.
Analogy.....

During a football game, there were 3 calls turned over by instant replay review. The last play of the game, where a player scored the winning touchdown, there was question whether or not his foot stepped on the sideline. It was an SEC team vs. an ACC game. You are an ACC fan. It was an SEC player that scored the apparent touchdown. The head ref decides to amend the rules and claims "we will not review the last play of a game"......would you not question what the hell and be upset about the mid game change of rules??

Now...that is a lousy football game. What about the election of a President of the United States?

They literally do not care

They are psychopaths -

I bet they would care if the tables were turned.

The Hillary supporters got the fuck over it, like adults

Anyone who "get's over" a swindled election is a scumbag.

What do we call those who whine about losing and then pretend that it was a swindled election with no evidence.....(see all those court losses). A sucker? Seditious? A cultist?

we call them Hillary Clinton

You mean the Presidential Candidate that conceded on Election Night, 2016?

 

[SC Patriot]

I'm not going to bothering reading the thread ... looks like the same vomit from yesterday ...

Anyone dared comment on the merits of the case yet? ... the OP is crazy wrong ... if we let Texas dictate how Michigan interprets their own laws ... pfffft ... worst, allow Texas to go straight to SCOTUS ... well ... then ... er ...

What's to stop California from telling Mississippi how to run their education system? ... and going straight to SCOTUS with the complaint ...

No ... I didn';t think anyone wanted to discuss this matter honestly ... sorry for interrupting ...

This is what annoys me the worst. I know this is a Hail Mary and it has no chance of overturning the election, but the fact that Texas even had a path to take this directly to the SC with 1) no successful lower court rulings, and 2) Able to file a lawsuit that essentially is looking to interfere in another states' affairs....is a complete travesty.

So you have no idea about how multiple state issues are resolved. It goes directly to the supreme court. Always. Always. Always.
You are not worthy of adding to this conversation as you are naive as to how a republic works.

FYI....we are a republic.

I laugh at those that attempt to debate and say things that are not factually correct. Its like "Rachel Maddow said this so I can regirgitate it
There IS no issue, snowflake. That's the point. This is frivolous. Texas has NO standing to question another state's process. They suffered no harm.
So do me a favor and stow your upturned nose. I don't give a shit.

Oh. I see. A state voted legally, and their electoral college votes are offset by a state that votes against the constitution. Got it.
Good for you.

So what you're really trying to say here is that state's DON'T have the right to make their own laws. Again, selective interpretation. So much for that yellowed scrap of paper.
Texas wasn't harmed therefore has no standing to bring the suit...unless you are postulating that because Texas voted for Trump, these other states have to as well.

Uh...excuse me. I never said that. States get to make their own laws. Always. Governors and judges do not have the right to change those laws according to the constitution. Only LAW MAKERS do.
Know your stuff before you debate.

No chance

This really isn't going to happen.

You guys really need to calm down. Go out and get some air. Spend the day in a forest with no cell phone.

Yep, just let the cheating happen, after all Progs know what's best for us because we don't.

Yep, just let the cheating happen, after all Progs know what's best for us because we don't.

Cheating?
All 50 governors have certified their election results.

Yes. All states certified the results. I expected that. The question is, should states have their electoral college numbers offset by states that had non law makers change their election laws? And 18 governors and AG's are protecting their state citizens from having their vote offset.
Analogy.....

During a football game, there were 3 calls turned over by instant replay review. The last play of the game, where a player scored the winning touchdown, there was question whether or not his foot stepped on the sideline. It was an SEC team vs. an ACC game. You are an ACC fan. It was an SEC player that scored the apparent touchdown. The head ref decides to amend the rules and claims "we will not review the last play of a game"......would you not question what the hell and be upset about the mid game change of rules??

Now...that is a lousy football game. What about the election of a President of the United States?

They literally do not care

They are psychopaths -

I bet they would care if the tables were turned.

The Hillary supporters got the fuck over it, like adults

Anyone who "get's over" a swindled election is a scumbag.

What do we call those who whine about losing and then pretend that it was a swindled election with no evidence.....(see all those court losses). A sucker? Seditious? A cultist?

we call them Hillary Clinton

You mean the Presidential Candidate that conceded on Election Night, 2016?

yup. She conceded and spent the next three years blaming us deplorables for a stolen election.
But you run with that attitude. It fits you well.

 

[bodecea]

What election fraud did Republicans commit?

Same amount that the Democratic party committed.

Wrong.

Prove it.

So far you've completely failed to do so.

What would you consider "proof?"

Something that a court of law has determined to be proof.

ROFL! There won't bee any jury trials over this, shit for brains. Why not just insist that a truth machine needs to agree?

Go fuck yourself.

Being upset and foul-mouthed isn't getting trump's case any farther, is it?

 

[bripat9643]

I have faith in our Conservative court to not only reject this ridiculous claim but to admonish EVERY Republican who endorses it.

Why should Republicans be "admonished" for protesting against stolen elections? There is really little point in spending the time or money to run for office if you are going to be swindled.

Further, no one will contribute to an election campaign that has no chance of succeeding because of fraud.

Because it wasn't stolen. For the first time in many election cycles, the Republican tactic of voter suppression was largely removed. Granted, it was because of the pandemic (which I'd like to point out was made worse by the lack of response from the WH and impeded by the Republican party). Individual states made their own election rules. It is up to the state to set those rules. If you truly believe in the Constitution, then you believe in state's rights. If not, it's just bullshit talk. You believe in selective interpretation. For the SC to rule in Texas favor, it would have to throw out and invalidate millions of legally cast votes. Straight up voter disenfranchisement. It's bad enough that the Republican party engages in voter suppression and gerrymandering, but this?...is straight up theft..and sedition.

How is making a person vote in person and prove they are eligible to vote voter surpression?

States made the election rules. There are states that have used mail in voting for years without incident. The military has used it for decades.
Voting in person (especially during a pandemic) may not be possible for everyone. Hence, a way for Republicans to practice voter suppression.
Everyone who cast a vote was eligible. 73 million of the morons voted for Trump.

Your man lost. And you're pissed. I get it. But this behavior is just un-American.

You just like mail in voting because it makes it easier to cheat, and you know your side has no issues with cheating.

Maybe you can explain how it is possible to cheat in a mail in ballot?

Do millions of soldiers and sailors cheat every year when they vote by mail?

Remember....soldiers and sailors are to be used...and if they can't be used, they are denigrated.....that's been "the way" the last four years.

scum like rightwinger are the only ones denigrating them, and Trump has prevented them from getting killed.

Nope....we have eyes to see...............and read.

Too bad you don't have a brain to make sense of what you see or read.

 

[SC Patriot]

What election fraud did Republicans commit?

Same amount that the Democratic party committed.

Wrong.

Prove it.

So far you've completely failed to do so.

What would you consider "proof?"

Something that a court of law has determined to be proof.

ROFL! There won't bee any jury trials over this, shit for brains. Why not just insist that a truth machine needs to agree?

Go fuck yourself.

Being upset and foul-mouthed isn't getting trump's case any farther, is it?

Perhaps not.
So Biden is inaugurated and within a year we have Harris.

Be careful for what you wish for.

 

[bripat9643]

It's a non sequitur.

A non sequitur is a statement with no logical connection.

The problem here is your lack of logic.

What's the logical connection?

Extraconstitutional legislation by executives.

The SC is not an executive, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

What election fraud did Republicans commit?

Same amount that the Democratic party committed.

Wrong.

Prove it.

So far you've completely failed to do so.

What would you consider "proof?"

Something that a court of law has determined to be proof.

ROFL! There won't bee any jury trials over this, shit for brains. Why not just insist that a truth machine needs to agree?

Go fuck yourself.

Being upset and foul-mouthed isn't getting trump's case any farther, is it?

What do you suggest, conceding?

 

[colfax_m]

What election fraud did Republicans commit?

Same amount that the Democratic party committed.

Wrong.

Prove it.

So far you've completely failed to do so.

What would you consider "proof?"

Something that a court of law has determined to be proof.

ROFL! There won't bee any jury trials over this, shit for brains. Why not just insist that a truth machine needs to agree?

Go fuck yourself.

Being upset and foul-mouthed isn't getting trump's case any farther, is it?

What do you suggest, conceding?

That’s what people do when they lose elections.

 

[Juicin]

The United States has existed for 244 years. If the Texas lawsuit challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election fails, the United States will cease to exist. The US came to be as a result of a people wanting to be free of elite government power. The founders that created the United states realized that individual liberty was so important that a life-risking break with traditional aristocratic control was the only way to fashion a truly free society.

There is an evil in this world that will always be with us. Certain aspects of all societies will always rise to power and when that evil gets power it will never willingly relent to the will of the people because the people are regarded as inferior and unfit to choose their own destiny. When Benjamin Franklin was asked if we have a republic or a monarchy he is purported to have said: “A republic if we can keep it.” Whether he actually uttered those exact words is less important than their meaning.

Franklin knew full well that the minds and hearts of the people could be tricked and swindled by clever power merchants appealing to fear and personal greed. But he like the founders had faith that the people would recognize the power they held with their votes. Rank and file citizens have a collective common sense, and they cannot be fooled indefinitely. They can vote out the power if they choose. This is the golden difference the US possesses as opposed to the rest of the world.

This golden difference became manifest when Donald Trump gained access to the White House by virtue of the vote in the wake of an awakening that government was acting on its own behalf not in the best interest of the people. The people had been tricked and fooled once but not again.

The wickedness of the 2020 election became clear when the vote was tainted and manipulated with fraud. Joe Biden was “selected” with votes, not elected by voters. The hearts and minds of the people were supplanted with mountains of paper ballots rising out of last-minute unconstitutional changes by state actors skirting any actual legislative process. It was brazenly done in broad daylight; it was the raw power that Franklin warned about.

Seventeen states have joined Texas in this lawsuit to save our republic. Let us hope the Supreme Court comes to our rescue.

It might be the end of the democracy

But this is exactly what the republic is designed to do....lol

They don't have to steal an election they control the relevant legislative bodies, which always have veto over democracy by constitutional law in the federal system and seemingly every state as well.

 

[colfax_m]

It's a non sequitur.

A non sequitur is a statement with no logical connection.

The problem here is your lack of logic.

What's the logical connection?

Extraconstitutional legislation by executives.

The SC is not an executive, moron.

Yeah, I give up. I can’t explain it any simpler to you. At some point you have to be smart enough to have this conversation and you just aren’t.

 

[ReinyDays]

So Biden is inaugurated and within a year we have Harris.
Be careful for what you wish for.

I won't wish death on anyone ... maybe a medical condition that causes Quid Pro Joe to resign? ... I'm ready for a more foofy America ...

 

[colfax_m]

What election fraud did Republicans commit?

Same amount that the Democratic party committed.

Wrong.

Prove it.

So far you've completely failed to do so.

What would you consider "proof?"

Something that a court of law has determined to be proof.

ROFL! There won't bee any jury trials over this, shit for brains. Why not just insist that a truth machine needs to agree?

Go fuck yourself.

Being upset and foul-mouthed isn't getting trump's case any farther, is it?

Perhaps not.
So Biden is inaugurated and within a year we have Harris.

Be careful for what you wish for.

I like Harris more than Biden, that’s for sure.

To be honest, I’m getting pretty sick of the country being run by a bunch of geriatrics.

 

[colfax_m]

A president cannot make an appropriation.

But Trump did. Congress never approved his little border wall.

They didn't have to. Why? There was no law against a wall and he was able to use the ACoE to build the wall and use their funds. Just as Obama used those funds to build holding cells on the border in 2014.

The fact that there is no law against something does not give the president authority to spend money not otherwise approved.

 

[bodecea]

I must have hit a nerve. All the usual suspects came stampeding out of the barn like it was on fire.

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.

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.

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.

Nope

You should have read the lawsuit. Don't blame me for your ignorance.

My guess is you didnt.
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.

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.

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.

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.

If you read the lawsuit, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact that the lawsuit is asking SCOTUS to delay the meeting of the electors which is currently set for Monday and which was determined by Congress as stipulated in the Constitution.

There's a process for challenging executive orders, and in some cases, that process occurred. Waiting until after the votes have cast to cry foul is not okay with me.

The SC overrides Congress almost daily.

Oh really?

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

I'm not going to bothering reading the thread ... looks like the same vomit from yesterday ...

Anyone dared comment on the merits of the case yet? ... the OP is crazy wrong ... if we let Texas dictate how Michigan interprets their own laws ... pfffft ... worst, allow Texas to go straight to SCOTUS ... well ... then ... er ...

What's to stop California from telling Mississippi how to run their education system? ... and going straight to SCOTUS with the complaint ...

No ... I didn';t think anyone wanted to discuss this matter honestly ... sorry for interrupting ...

This is what annoys me the worst. I know this is a Hail Mary and it has no chance of overturning the election, but the fact that Texas even had a path to take this directly to the SC with 1) no successful lower court rulings, and 2) Able to file a lawsuit that essentially is looking to interfere in another states' affairs....is a complete travesty.

So you have no idea about how multiple state issues are resolved. It goes directly to the supreme court. Always. Always. Always.
You are not worthy of adding to this conversation as you are naive as to how a republic works.

FYI....we are a republic.

I laugh at those that attempt to debate and say things that are not factually correct. Its like "Rachel Maddow said this so I can regirgitate it
There IS no issue, snowflake. That's the point. This is frivolous. Texas has NO standing to question another state's process. They suffered no harm.
So do me a favor and stow your upturned nose. I don't give a shit.

Oh. I see. A state voted legally, and their electoral college votes are offset by a state that votes against the constitution. Got it.
Good for you.

So what you're really trying to say here is that state's DON'T have the right to make their own laws. Again, selective interpretation. So much for that yellowed scrap of paper.
Texas wasn't harmed therefore has no standing to bring the suit...unless you are postulating that because Texas voted for Trump, these other states have to as well.

Uh...excuse me. I never said that. States get to make their own laws. Always. Governors and judges do not have the right to change those laws according to the constitution. Only LAW MAKERS do.
Know your stuff before you debate.

No chance

This really isn't going to happen.

You guys really need to calm down. Go out and get some air. Spend the day in a forest with no cell phone.

Yep, just let the cheating happen, after all Progs know what's best for us because we don't.

Yep, just let the cheating happen, after all Progs know what's best for us because we don't.

Cheating?
All 50 governors have certified their election results.

Yes. All states certified the results. I expected that. The question is, should states have their electoral college numbers offset by states that had non law makers change their election laws? And 18 governors and AG's are protecting their state citizens from having their vote offset.
Analogy.....

During a football game, there were 3 calls turned over by instant replay review. The last play of the game, where a player scored the winning touchdown, there was question whether or not his foot stepped on the sideline. It was an SEC team vs. an ACC game. You are an ACC fan. It was an SEC player that scored the apparent touchdown. The head ref decides to amend the rules and claims "we will not review the last play of a game"......would you not question what the hell and be upset about the mid game change of rules??

Now...that is a lousy football game. What about the election of a President of the United States?

They literally do not care

They are psychopaths -

I bet they would care if the tables were turned.

The Hillary supporters got the fuck over it, like adults

Anyone who "get's over" a swindled election is a scumbag.

What do we call those who whine about losing and then pretend that it was a swindled election with no evidence.....(see all those court losses). A sucker? Seditious? A cultist?

we call them Hillary Clinton

You mean the Presidential Candidate that conceded on Election Night, 2016?

yup. She conceded and spent the next three years blaming us deplorables for a stolen election.
But you run with that attitude. It fits you well.

Doesn't matter. She conceded. Obama offered a smooth transition. I don't recall her dragging lawyers into courts in the three states she lost by 77,000 votes, screaming all over social media that the election was rigged, and taking that temper tantrum all the way to the Supreme Court. The whacko Jill Stein initiated the recounts in December. Stop deflecting. Trump lost. Biden won. Deal with it. Move on.

 

[SC Patriot]

A president cannot make an appropriation.

But Trump did. Congress never approved his little border wall.

They didn't have to. Why? There was no law against a wall and he was able to use the ACoE to build the wall and use their funds. Just as Obama used those funds to build holding cells on the border in 2014.

The fact that there is no law against something does not give the president authority to spend money not otherwise approved.

Actually, you are wrong. The funds were approved. As commander in chief, what he does with them is his decision.
No offense, but I suggest you brush up on the branches of government and the role they play as it pertains to our republic. Sometimes it works in a way I like and sometimes it works in a way you like. But that is why it works so well. You should appreciate it.

 

[SC Patriot]

What election fraud did Republicans commit?

Same amount that the Democratic party committed.

Wrong.

Prove it.

So far you've completely failed to do so.

What would you consider "proof?"

Something that a court of law has determined to be proof.

ROFL! There won't bee any jury trials over this, shit for brains. Why not just insist that a truth machine needs to agree?

Go fuck yourself.

Being upset and foul-mouthed isn't getting trump's case any farther, is it?

Perhaps not.
So Biden is inaugurated and within a year we have Harris.

Be careful for what you wish for.

I like Harris more than Biden, that’s for sure.

To be honest, I’m getting pretty sick of the country being run by a bunch of geriatrics.

lol. I was thinking the same thing. If you take the age of Trump and add it tot he age of Pelosi and add it to the age of McConnell and add it to the age of Biden.....that amount of years brings us back in the BC times!
Kind of scary.