The Texas lawsuit and the possible end of our republic.

[rightwinger]

If they are going to delay the electors and the electors are set to meet Monday, the court better rule on this today. Today is Friday.

I don't see any thing coming from the court that will stop the electors from meeting and voting on Monday.

Do any of the right wing ever read documents?

It's the supreme court, not a bank. They can rule anytime they want.

But yeah, if they don't stop the electors from meeting on Monday, it would be well outside the bounds of the Constitution for SCOTUS to stop it.

I think it probably already is outside the bounds of federal law for SCOTUS to stop this given we are well past the safe harbor.

There's a constitutional mechanism for challenging electors after they've been made and it has zero to do with SCOTUS. I can't see SCOTUS crafting a whole new extraconstitutional mechanism when there is no need for one.

The date of the EV is set by the Constitution
It is not subject to change

 

[Polishprince]

If the Texas lawsuit challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election fails, the United States will cease to exist

No it won't mr.Nutter-butter.

How have Conservatives turned into such nut jobs?

They seem to think the fate of the nation depends on Trump being re-elected

We the People decided otherwise

you don't know that to be the case at all.

BTW, supposed tomorrow afternoon, they discovered an uncounted boxcar or two loaded with Trump votes in Sacramento, enough to change the state and the election. Would you say "let's count every vote" , or would you say you have doubts about it?

 

[colfax_m]

If one state strays from those laws due to an overzealous governor, then their EV's offset the EV's of a state that adheres to their laws that were voted on and adapted by the legislators of that state who were voted in by their constituents.

No, this is illogical. Texas's votes are not cancelled by Georgia's votes. They all receive their allocated votes and they are cast in the electoral college. Votes don't cancel each other out. Never have and never will.

 

[SC Patriot]

We are the majority by far
which will come in handy, if this moves to the next phase.

The next phase is you people curling up in a ball and babbling incoherently.

like the last four years of russia russia russia?

I dont think so.

 

[Toro]

How have Conservatives turned into such nut jobs?

They seem to think the fate of the nation depends on Trump being re-elected

We the People decided otherwise

 

[rightwinger]

If the Texas lawsuit challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election fails, the United States will cease to exist

No it won't mr.Nutter-butter.

How have Conservatives turned into such nut jobs?

They seem to think the fate of the nation depends on Trump being re-elected

We the People decided otherwise

Actually, 75 million think otherwise. So yes, a majority of the people decided, but an unusually large minority think otherwise. That does not make us nut jobs. It makes a a large minority. Are you saying half the electorate are nut jobs?

We are the majority by far
which will come in handy, if this moves to the next phase.

You lost

 

[Billiejeens]

If they are going to delay the electors and the electors are set to meet Monday, the court better rule on this today. Today is Friday.

I don't see any thing coming from the court that will stop the electors from meeting and voting on Monday.

Do any of the right wing ever read documents?

It's the supreme court, not a bank. They can rule anytime they want.

But yeah, if they don't stop the electors from meeting on Monday, it would be well outside the bounds of the Constitution for SCOTUS to stop it.

I think it probably already is outside the bounds of federal law for SCOTUS to stop this given we are well past the safe harbor.

There's a constitutional mechanism for challenging electors after they've been made and it has zero to do with SCOTUS. I can't see SCOTUS crafting a whole new extraconstitutional mechanism when there is no need for one.

The date of the EV is set by the Constitution
It is not subject to change

Factually False

 

[rightwinger]

If the Texas lawsuit challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election fails, the United States will cease to exist

No it won't mr.Nutter-butter.

How have Conservatives turned into such nut jobs?

They seem to think the fate of the nation depends on Trump being re-elected

We the People decided otherwise

you don't know that to be the case at all.

BTW, supposed tomorrow afternoon, they discovered an uncounted boxcar or two loaded with Trump votes in Sacramento, enough to change the state and the election. Would you say "let's count every vote" , or would you say you have doubts about it?

Fantasy Island

 

[rightwinger]

If they are going to delay the electors and the electors are set to meet Monday, the court better rule on this today. Today is Friday.

I don't see any thing coming from the court that will stop the electors from meeting and voting on Monday.

Do any of the right wing ever read documents?

It's the supreme court, not a bank. They can rule anytime they want.

But yeah, if they don't stop the electors from meeting on Monday, it would be well outside the bounds of the Constitution for SCOTUS to stop it.

I think it probably already is outside the bounds of federal law for SCOTUS to stop this given we are well past the safe harbor.

There's a constitutional mechanism for challenging electors after they've been made and it has zero to do with SCOTUS. I can't see SCOTUS crafting a whole new extraconstitutional mechanism when there is no need for one.

The date of the EV is set by the Constitution
It is not subject to change

Factually False

Nope

 

[Toro]

you don't know that to be the case at all.

BTW, supposed tomorrow afternoon, they discovered an uncounted boxcar or two loaded with Trump votes in Sacramento, enough to change the state and the election. Would you say "let's count every vote" , or would you say you have doubts about it?

When the Orange Jesus clown car legal team actually proves that in court, you'll have a point.

Pro tip: An article on Newsmax or Epoch Times isn't "proof."

Yoar welcome.

 

[Billiejeens]

If they are going to delay the electors and the electors are set to meet Monday, the court better rule on this today. Today is Friday.

I don't see any thing coming from the court that will stop the electors from meeting and voting on Monday.

Do any of the right wing ever read documents?

It's the supreme court, not a bank. They can rule anytime they want.

But yeah, if they don't stop the electors from meeting on Monday, it would be well outside the bounds of the Constitution for SCOTUS to stop it.

I think it probably already is outside the bounds of federal law for SCOTUS to stop this given we are well past the safe harbor.

There's a constitutional mechanism for challenging electors after they've been made and it has zero to do with SCOTUS. I can't see SCOTUS crafting a whole new extraconstitutional mechanism when there is no need for one.

The date of the EV is set by the Constitution
It is not subject to change

Factually False

Nope

troll

 

[Toro]

troll

cultist

 

[SC Patriot]

If one state strays from those laws due to an overzealous governor, then their EV's offset the EV's of a state that adheres to their laws that were voted on and adapted by the legislators of that state who were voted in by their constituents.

No, this is illogical. Texas's votes are not cancelled by Georgia's votes. They all receive their allocated votes and they are cast in the electoral college. Votes don't cancel each other out. Never have and never will.

I disagree. a constitutionally legal vote in one state compared to an unconstitutionally illegal vote in another state IS offset. If State A has 10 electoral votes and their vote is legal and goes yellow and state B has 10 electoral votes and it is unconstitutional and it goes green, then a constitutionally legal voting state has their electoral votes cancelled by an unconstitutional voting state..
The legal votes have the same weight as the illegal votes....making the legal votes a net zero...cancelling their vote.
So legal votes should have gained 10 electoral votes...but instead are cancelled out.
Thus the reason for the suit.

 

[Billiejeens]

troll

cultist

You are a Bubbleculist - that makes you uninformed which in turn makes you very stupid.

 

[j-mac]

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?

harvesting is the biggest one.

Usually mail in ballots are requested, which allows for tracing.

It adds also the chance for stuffing in the counting rooms, by increasing the paper count.

How do you stuff ballots when each ballot has a unique bar code traceable to a registered voter?

If ballots were stuffed, multiple votes would show up for registered voters.......There were no instances of that happening

And tell us how we are to verify that when you people have succeeded in doing away with signature verification, resisting cleaning up voter roles, and then kick out observers, and arrive with truck loads of pristine unfolded ballots with one vote each for Biden and that's it....?

Nah, you are not to be trusted, or given any creedence at all...

Now you are just making shit up
No need to respond

You can't respond to fact...All of the things I listed are just that, fact.

And I hope to God, the SCOTUS does the right thing...You people can not be afforded the mantel of leadership of this country.

 

[Rogue AI]

If the Supreme Court allows election officials to change the rules for the candidates of their choice with impunity then the Republic is dead. Elections will be meaningless.

 

[colfax_m]

I disagree. I constitutionally legal vote in one state compared to an unconstitutionally illegal vote in another state IS offset. If State A has 10 electoral votes and their vote is legal and goes yellow and state B has 10 electoral votes and it is unconstitutional and it goes green, then a constitutionally legal voting state has their electoral votes cancelled by an unconstitutional voting state..
The legal votes have the same weight as the illegal votes....making the legal votes a net zero...cancelling their vote.
So legal votes should have gained 10 electoral votes...but instead are cancelled out.
Thus the reason for the suit.

Constitutionally legal vote? The votes of each state are determined by the number of Senators and number of representatives. There are no more or no fewer. Those are the votes they are legally and constitutionally allocated. A vote cannot be considered invalid simply because you don't like who they chose.

 

[Toro]

You are a Bubbleculist - that makes you uninformed which in turn makes you very stupid.

Says the moron who thinks her Orange God is going to be President while going 1-57 in court lol

 

[colfax_m]

If the Supreme Court allows election officials to change the rules for the candidates of their choice with impunity then the Republic is dead. Elections will be meaningless.

And to fix this you want the Supreme Court to change the rules for the candidate of their choice AFTER THE ELECTION.

If you guys get your way, elections will definitely be meaningless since you can change the rules after people voted. No one will have any way in knowing if their vote is going to count because it can be taken away after the fact.

 

[rightwinger]

If they are going to delay the electors and the electors are set to meet Monday, the court better rule on this today. Today is Friday.

I don't see any thing coming from the court that will stop the electors from meeting and voting on Monday.

Do any of the right wing ever read documents?

It's the supreme court, not a bank. They can rule anytime they want.

But yeah, if they don't stop the electors from meeting on Monday, it would be well outside the bounds of the Constitution for SCOTUS to stop it.

I think it probably already is outside the bounds of federal law for SCOTUS to stop this given we are well past the safe harbor.

There's a constitutional mechanism for challenging electors after they've been made and it has zero to do with SCOTUS. I can't see SCOTUS crafting a whole new extraconstitutional mechanism when there is no need for one.

The date of the EV is set by the Constitution
It is not subject to change

Factually False

Nope

troll

Prove what I said is false
I will wait