Trump and 18 states join Texas lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court.

[busybee01]

MAGA!
18 States and Trump Team Join Texas in Supreme Court Case Challenging Election Outcomes in 4 Key Sta - YouTube

GREAT, get all the cases together and dismiss them all at once. President-elect Biden doesn't need this hanging over his head any longer. Our long national nightmare is almost over.

No, he needs to be investigated for his illegal activities with china and ukraine and then impeached after the Rs take over the house. The illegitmate joe is a national travesty.

He could not be impeached for crimes that he allegedly committed before taking office

Yes, they could because his crimes are ongoing.

That is so much bullshit.

 

[busybee01]

Here is one very big WTF from REPUBLICAN Sen John Cornyn.

"Number one, why would a state, even such a great state as Texas, have a say-so on how other states administer their elections?" Cornyn asked CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju. "We have a diffused and dispersed system, and even though we might not like it, they may think it's unfair, those (election policies) are decided at the state and local level and not at the national level."

"You know, it's very unusual because when a state sues a state, the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction, so you don't have to go through the ordinary procedure," Cornyn continued. "I read just the summary of it, and I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it... It's an interesting theory, but I'm not convinced."

Texas GOP Senator Cornyn Criticizes Legal Theory Behind State's Election Lawsuit (newsweek.com)

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

MAGA!
18 States and Trump Team Join Texas in Supreme Court Case Challenging Election Outcomes in 4 Key Sta - YouTube

GREAT, get all the cases together and dismiss them all at once. President-elect Biden doesn't need this hanging over his head any longer. Our long national nightmare is almost over.

No, he needs to be investigated for his illegal activities with china and ukraine and then impeached after the Rs take over the house. The illegitmate joe is a national travesty.

He could not be impeached for crimes that he allegedly committed before taking office

Yes, they could because his crimes are ongoing.

Sure they are Bubba

We know you're ok with the crimes.

Tell us more about what you think you know about me.

 

[Chuz Life]

MAGA!
18 States and Trump Team Join Texas in Supreme Court Case Challenging Election Outcomes in 4 Key Sta - YouTube

GREAT, get all the cases together and dismiss them all at once. President-elect Biden doesn't need this hanging over his head any longer. Our long national nightmare is almost over.

You wish. The outcome of the courts won't satisfy crazy right wingers. They think Joe stole the election, and nothing anybody can say or do will change their minds. Facts quit mattering to them a long time ago

Facts?

Are YOU claiming to care about facts?

Let's talk biology.

Shall we?

 

[BULLDOG]

MAGA!
18 States and Trump Team Join Texas in Supreme Court Case Challenging Election Outcomes in 4 Key Sta - YouTube

GREAT, get all the cases together and dismiss them all at once. President-elect Biden doesn't need this hanging over his head any longer. Our long national nightmare is almost over.

You wish. The outcome of the courts won't satisfy crazy right wingers. They think Joe stole the election, and nothing anybody can say or do will change their minds. Facts quit mattering to them a long time ago

Facts?

Are YOU claiming to care about facts?

Let's talk biology.

Shall we?

If you want to talk about biology, you should start a thread about that. I doubt you'll be any more informed about that than you are about anything else though.

 

[Chuz Life]

MAGA!
18 States and Trump Team Join Texas in Supreme Court Case Challenging Election Outcomes in 4 Key Sta - YouTube

GREAT, get all the cases together and dismiss them all at once. President-elect Biden doesn't need this hanging over his head any longer. Our long national nightmare is almost over.

You wish. The outcome of the courts won't satisfy crazy right wingers. They think Joe stole the election, and nothing anybody can say or do will change their minds. Facts quit mattering to them a long time ago

Facts?

Are YOU claiming to care about facts?

Let's talk biology.

Shall we?

If you want to talk about biology, you should start a thread about that. I doubt you'll be any more informed about that than you are about anything else though.

As I suspected.

You don't guve a fuck about facts at all. Especially when the facts don't fit your own pre CONCEIVED (pun intended) notions.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Add Arizona to the list. They have separately filed a motion for leave to file a brief in support of the Bill of Complaint and the request for preliminary injunction

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163258/20201209171850333_TX%20v%20PA%20Motion%20for%20Leave%20FINAL.pdf

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Here is one very big WTF from REPUBLICAN Sen John Cornyn.

"Number one, why would a state, even such a great state as Texas, have a say-so on how other states administer their elections?" Cornyn asked CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju. "We have a diffused and dispersed system, and even though we might not like it, they may think it's unfair, those (election policies) are decided at the state and local level and not at the national level."

...

With all due respect to Senator Cornyn, he ought to dust off his old St. Mary's Constitutional Law textbook from 40 years ago, and take a refresher course; here's a why -- in the Supreme Court's own words:

“Every voter” in a federal election “has a right under the Constitution to have his [or her] vote fairly counted, without its being distorted by fraudulently cast votes.” Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 227 (1974).

To ensure “fair and honest” elections marked by “order, rather than chaos,” “there must be a substantial regulation of elections.” Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974). “[E] xperience shows” those “necessary” regulations include not just voting “procedure” but also “safeguards” for the “prevention of fraud and corrupt practices.” Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 366 (1932).

When state courts and executive branch officials violate the Electors Clause of the Constitution by circumventing the state legislatures, and change election procedures in such a way that it removes the legislatively enacted "procedures" and "safeguards," and subjects federal elections to disorder and fraud, it violates the Constitutional rights of all American citizens in every state.

 

[konradv]

Here is one very big WTF from REPUBLICAN Sen John Cornyn.

"Number one, why would a state, even such a great state as Texas, have a say-so on how other states administer their elections?" Cornyn asked CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju. "We have a diffused and dispersed system, and even though we might not like it, they may think it's unfair, those (election policies) are decided at the state and local level and not at the national level."

...

With all due respect to Senator Cornyn, he ought to dust off his old St. Mary's Constitutional Law textbook from 40 years ago, and take a refresher course; here's a why -- in the Supreme Court's own words:

“Every voter” in a federal election “has a right under the Constitution to have his [or her] vote fairly counted, without its being distorted by fraudulently cast votes.” Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 227 (1974).

To ensure “fair and honest” elections marked by “order, rather than chaos,” “there must be a substantial regulation of elections.” Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974). “[E] xperience shows” those “necessary” regulations include not just voting “procedure” but also “safeguards” for the “prevention of fraud and corrupt practices.” Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 366 (1932).

When state courts and executive branch officials violate the Electors Clause of the Constitution by circumventing the state legislatures, and change election procedures in such a way that it removes the legislatively enacted "procedures" and "safeguards," and subjects federal elections to disorder and fraud, it violates the Constitutional rights of all American citizens in every state.

They haven't proven any of their allegations are true to the satisfaction of many judges, so I don't see the SC going against that much precedent.;

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Here is one very big WTF from REPUBLICAN Sen John Cornyn.

"Number one, why would a state, even such a great state as Texas, have a say-so on how other states administer their elections?" Cornyn asked CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju. "We have a diffused and dispersed system, and even though we might not like it, they may think it's unfair, those (election policies) are decided at the state and local level and not at the national level."

...

With all due respect to Senator Cornyn, he ought to dust off his old St. Mary's Constitutional Law textbook from 40 years ago, and take a refresher course; here's a why -- in the Supreme Court's own words:

“Every voter” in a federal election “has a right under the Constitution to have his [or her] vote fairly counted, without its being distorted by fraudulently cast votes.” Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 227 (1974).

To ensure “fair and honest” elections marked by “order, rather than chaos,” “there must be a substantial regulation of elections.” Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974). “[E] xperience shows” those “necessary” regulations include not just voting “procedure” but also “safeguards” for the “prevention of fraud and corrupt practices.” Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 366 (1932).

When state courts and executive branch officials violate the Electors Clause of the Constitution by circumventing the state legislatures, and change election procedures in such a way that it removes the legislatively enacted "procedures" and "safeguards," and subjects federal elections to disorder and fraud, it violates the Constitutional rights of all American citizens in every state.

They haven't proven any of their allegations are true to the satisfaction of many judges, so I don't see the SC going against that much precedent.;

What precedent? No court has adjudicated any of the claims in this Bill of Complaint on the merits to date. Care to clarify?

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[WTF19]

MAGA!
18 States and Trump Team Join Texas in Supreme Court Case Challenging Election Outcomes in 4 Key Sta - YouTube

GREAT, get all the cases together and dismiss them all at once. President-elect Biden doesn't need this hanging over his head any longer. Our long national nightmare is almost over.

yo--retard...there is no such position as pres. elect...it does not exist----duh

The President-elect would beg to differ.

wow...that answer, not intelligent, must have taken a long time to think of. but, there still is no position with that title.....duh

 

[WTF19]

MAGA!
18 States and Trump Team Join Texas in Supreme Court Case Challenging Election Outcomes in 4 Key Sta - YouTube

GREAT, get all the cases together and dismiss them all at once. President-elect Biden doesn't need this hanging over his head any longer. Our long national nightmare is almost over.

You wish. The outcome of the courts won't satisfy crazy right wingers. They think Joe stole the election, and nothing anybody can say or do will change their minds. Facts quit mattering to them a long time ago

Facts?

Are YOU claiming to care about facts?

Let's talk biology.

Shall we?

If you want to talk about biology, you should start a thread about that. I doubt you'll be any more informed about that than you are about anything else though.

my guess is you are saying that as you look in the mirror...GOD knows you will never be informed watching fake news from publishers.....duh

 

[WTF19]

MAGA!
18 States and Trump Team Join Texas in Supreme Court Case Challenging Election Outcomes in 4 Key Sta - YouTube

GREAT, get all the cases together and dismiss them all at once. President-elect Biden doesn't need this hanging over his head any longer. Our long national nightmare is almost over.

no not yet, your still here

 

[Drop Dead Fred]

The full text of the lawsuit is at

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

Here's a summary of the lawsuit. If these things are true, then Democrats definitely stole the election.

A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit

Texas claims that the presidential elections as held (and as directed by government officials outside the legislature) in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing ...

www.americanthinker.com

 

[BULLDOG]

MAGA!
18 States and Trump Team Join Texas in Supreme Court Case Challenging Election Outcomes in 4 Key Sta - YouTube

GREAT, get all the cases together and dismiss them all at once. President-elect Biden doesn't need this hanging over his head any longer. Our long national nightmare is almost over.

You wish. The outcome of the courts won't satisfy crazy right wingers. They think Joe stole the election, and nothing anybody can say or do will change their minds. Facts quit mattering to them a long time ago

Facts?

Are YOU claiming to care about facts?

Let's talk biology.

Shall we?

If you want to talk about biology, you should start a thread about that. I doubt you'll be any more informed about that than you are about anything else though.

As I suspected.

You don't guve a fuck about facts at all. Especially when the facts don't fit your own pre CONCEIVED (pun intended) notions.

No, I'm not real interested in the alternative facts the right keeps making up, and I still don't know why you want to jump to discussing biology, but I haven't understood right wing logic for a long time anyway.

 

[B. Kidd]

It looks like well over 1/3rd of the States thinks the election is a fraud!

Does SCOTUS really want to ignore this!

 

[konradv]

It looks like well over 1/3rd of the States thinks the election is a fraud! Does SCOTUS really want to ignore this!

Ignore? NO, it's called dismissed for lack of evidence.

 

[B. Kidd]

It looks like well over 1/3rd of the States thinks the election is a fraud! Does SCOTUS really want to ignore this!

Ignore? NO, it's called dismissed for lack of evidence.

Just your partisan opinion.