Texas sues Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania over election fraud

Flash said:
The state legislature did determine the method of selecting electors. The mechanics of conducting the election are not included in that constitutional provision.

"Last month, by a 4-3 vote, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered the three-day extension, citing a 1980s precedent where a state court ordered a two-week suspension of an election when severe flooding made it impossible for voters to cast ballots. The state Supreme Court invoked its power under the Pennsylvania Constitution’s Free and Fair Election Clause to ensure that voters aren’t disenfranchised due to a public-health emergency it likened to a natural disaster."

"WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Monday refused to disturb a ruling by Pennsylvania’s highest court that extended the battleground state’s deadline for accepting mail-in ballots, a win for Democrats that gives voters more time to navigate postal delays and avoid in-person voting."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/suprem...il-in-ballots-in-pennsylvania-11603149426#_=_
Click to expand...

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court does not have authority to write law or change the constitution of the State of Pennsylvania or the Constitution of the United States.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
There is no transparency problem that Paxton's lawsuit is addressing.

Until you you have clear and convincing evidence of fraud, which you do not have, then it's clear that this is not about fraud but about trying to attack democracy and the process by which we elect Presidents. Simply having suspicion is not a reason to overturn elections.
Click to expand...

Evidence exists. It is direct evidence.
 
LV426 said:
Some interesting news out of Georgia...1.1 million people have requested absentee ballots including 70,000 new voters aged 18-29...for the November election, 1.3M had requested ballots.

They don't break out by party affiliation but it would seem that most of them are Democrats since they dominated the absentee voting in the General.
Click to expand...

Random numbers. Argument from randU fallacy.
 
Into the Night said:
WRONG. The Supreme Court has NOT dismissed Trump's lawsuit. It is still pending.
Click to expand...

Certainly did, but I suppose being anal retentive, you are going to tell us the actual suit wasn't part of the Trump teams effort but rather that of an individual Pennsylvania legislature, like an individual Pennsylvania legislature could mount on this own a Supreme Court case in less than a months time

Regardless, it was the case the Trump team was hoping to get SCOTUS consideration, which due to its weakness, wasn't even considered, tossed, in a half hour's time I might add
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Do you need someone to read it to you?

I was able to do a simple search and found the word "expert" is only there twice. Both times in the paragraph about signatures.

But I wonder if you know anything about statistical sampling. The number of ballots was enough to be a good statistical sample and with zero signatures that showed signs of fraud it would mean the likelihood of finding 1% or more fraudulent signatures is highly unlikely. The court says this:
" the statistically negligible error presented in this case falls far short of warranting relief under A.R.S. § 16-672. Because the challenge fails to present any evidence of “misconduct,” “illegal votes” or that the Biden Electors “did not in fact receive the highest number of votes for office,” let alone establish any degree of fraud or a sufficient error rate that would undermine the certainty of the election results,"
Click to expand...

Math error: Denial of raw data. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to publish raw data. Incomplete and invalid summary. Denial of statistical math.

Denial of evidence. Evidence exists. It is direct evidence. You also deny statistical mathematics.
 
Into the Night said:
Evidence exists. It is direct evidence.
Click to expand...

The Texas case "evidence" has largely been dismissed in other Trump legal attempts to invalidate the election, they have been shopping the same crapola anywhere they can hoping to get any Court's attention. To date, I believe it is like forty to one, and the one had zero influence on the election
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
The US Constitution says state legislatures set the rules for elections including setting the rules for how signatures are matched. There can be no equal protection argument between states based on the US Constitution. There is no amendment taking that power away from the state legislatures.
Click to expand...

WRONG. The US Constitution says State legislatures and ONLY State legislatures can determine the electors. They may use ANY method they wish to do so, including simply choosing the electors themselves. Since the election has faulted in these four States, their only choice now is for the legislatures to act, or abstain and lose their electoral votes. That is what both the Trump suit and the Texas suit are going to force. These legislatures MUST act, or risk losing their electors completely.

from Article II of the Constitution of the United States said:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Click to expand...
 
archives said:
The Texas case "evidence" has largely been dismissed in other Trump legal attempts to invalidate the election, they have been shopping the same crapola anywhere they can hoping to get any Court's attention. To date, I believe it is like forty to one, and the one had zero influence on the election
Click to expand...
If I was the judge, I’d ask why they aren’t suing Ohio, then dismiss the case.
 
archives said:
Certainly did
Click to expand...
No. The lawsuit is still pending. The only thing the Court denied was emergency relief.
archives said:
but I suppose being anal retentive, you are going to tell us the actual suit wasn't part of the Trump teams effort
Click to expand...
It is.
archives said:
but rather that of an individual Pennsylvania legislature, like an individual Pennsylvania legislature could mount on this own a Supreme Court case in less than a months time
Click to expand...
They can.
archives said:
Regardless, it was the case the Trump team was hoping to get SCOTUS consideration, which due to its weakness, wasn't even considered, tossed, in a half hour's time I might add
Click to expand...
It is not dismissed. The lawsuit is still pending.
 
archives said:
The Texas case "evidence" has largely been dismissed
Click to expand...
It has just been filed, dumbass!
archives said:
in other Trump legal attempts to invalidate the election,
Click to expand...
No, it hasn't been dismissed there either.
archives said:
they have been shopping the same crapola anywhere they can hoping to get any Court's attention.
Click to expand...
They are currently in the Supreme Court.
archives said:
To date, I believe it is like forty to one,
Click to expand...
Lie. Trump never filed 40+ lawsuits.
archives said:
and the one had zero influence on the election
Click to expand...
WRONG. The Supreme Court rulings can have a great influence on the election.
 
LOL! Can you imagine if in 2016, California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts sued to have Michigan and Pennsylvania's votes thrown out?

Conservatives would have exploded. Literally, they would have exploded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top