The Texas lawsuit and the possible end of our republic.

[bripat9643]

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.

Once the EC votes, it's in the hands of congress. And congress can by agreement of both houses throw out the votes from any state that did not select their electors by "safe harbor" day.

The safe harbor, 3 USC 5 ties congresses hands to only those electors where the states electors are in controversy. Such as a state selecting two sets of electors, or couldn't make up their mind 6 days before the vote.

Thanks for telling us your fantasy where you presume to tell the SC what it will do.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Can you believe Republicans who believe that unless the Supreme Court discards the votes of 10 million voters who followed the rules of voting in their state that it is “the end of the republic”?

 

[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

Prove what I said is false
I will wait

Troll

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That's what you douchebags chose when you decided to swindle this election.

Do you actually believe we should allow a swindler to win?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Can you believe Republicans who believe that unless the Supreme Court discards the votes of 10 million voters who followed the rules of voting in their state that it is “the end of the republic”?

Their rules were illegal, and they committed voter fraud.

 

[Ray9]

I have no idea what the court is going to do but I have a feeling the case is not going to be dismissed out of hand. From all reports the briefs are very convincing. Timeliness could be an issue but again I don't think the court is going to disregard the weight of the arguments and strike them down with a technicality. This may be the most important Supreme Court case of our lifetimes.

 

[Billiejeens]

You leave about half of the story out- of course.

Go on. What half did I leave out?

The actual factual time line that doesn't support your narrative.

 

[Dana7360]

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

From what I read, it's the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.

This year, that first Monday is December 14th.

USA Election 2020: when do the electors meet?

After you cast your vote on 3 November the process isn’t over. Your members of the Electoral College meet in state and vote for the next president.

en.as.com

 

[colfax_m]

Can you believe Republicans who believe that unless the Supreme Court discards the votes of 10 million voters who followed the rules of voting in their state that it is “the end of the republic”?

Honestly, I think 90% of them are just completely cynical. It's just for show to please the Trump rabble.

 

[colfax_m]

The actual factual time line that doesn't support your narrative.

Okay, sure. I'd ask you to explain yourself but we both know that's pointless.

 

[Mac-7]

Speaking of who might crack: Neil Gorsuch, of course. He wrote in favor of trannies being included in the civil rights laws, incredibly. If he can't be trusted with protecting companies against real crazies, he can't be trusted at all. If it's a close vote, he'll be the one to cross over to the Dark Side.

5 for 5 is a difficult score

They are counting angels on the head of a pin

4 count the same number and one could come up different for reasons no one can predict

 

[Mac-7]

The Constitution is clear on when the Electoral Vote is held.
It is not up for discussion

Dems can have their EC vote if they want it

but if no one has 270 it goes back to the states

 

[Billiejeens]

The actual factual time line that doesn't support your narrative.

Okay, sure. I'd ask you to explain yourself but we both know that's pointless.

- until you learn to comprehend

 

[SC Patriot]

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.

WHat makes it unconstitutional has nothing to do with the amount of congresspeople. It has to do with whether or not the voting process follows the state constitutional laws. Which is the point of the law suit. I am not an attorney nor am I a constitutional scholar so I have no idea if the suit has merit. But from what I have read and what I have heard, 4 state Governors amended state voting laws without it being approved by the people (referring to their elected state legislators). Now, sure, you can say "the people would have agreed to it anyway". Are you sure? Should a Governor, for arguments sake, who won by 1% of the vote make decisions as it pertains to changing laws? What of the legislature is green but the governor is yellow? Should the governor have the right to bypass the legislature and change laws?

That is why the suit.

Governors enforce laws. They do not write them.

And every state had 10 months to allow the people (the voted legislature) to amend the law for the election....so it was not like there was an immediate emergency.

 

[JimH52]

The USSC may just ignore it. Then when trump complains and says he is putting them all on hi HIt List....Roberts can say...."OOOPS....WE MISSED THAT ONE!"

 

[SC Patriot]

Can you believe Republicans who believe that unless the Supreme Court discards the votes of 10 million voters who followed the rules of voting in their state that it is “the end of the republic”?

Honestly, I think 90% of them are just completely cynical. It's just for show to please the Trump rabble.

Not necessary to go there. I find that offensive.

For months, the left cied, screamed in the street, protested, etc. I never once called them anything but people who felt they were short changed.

Name calling?

Childish in my eyes.

 

[Dana7360]

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

The only case trump and his lawyers won was a case of where observers can stand to watch the counting of the votes. So the observers stood 6ft away from those counting the votes instead of 10 ft.

It wasn't about fraud, cheating or denying observers to observe.

When it comes those cases, trump has won ZERO of those cases.

 

[JimH52]

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

The aftermath is going to be interesting as hell. And if there ISN'T an aftermath, THAT will be interesting, TOO.

I really hope the court does not just reject this ridiculous claim but hold those who filed it accountable.

All the attorney's and especially the State AGs need to be held accountable.

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution is clear on when the Electoral Vote is held.
It is not up for discussion

Dems can have their EC vote if they want it

but if no one has 270 it goes back to the states

Try 306
You lose

 

[JimH52]

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.

ARE YOU REALLY THIS STUPID! YOU WANT TO DISENFRANCHISE 20,000,000 VOTERS....SO trump CAN STAY IN POWER? REALLY?