SCOTUS GIVES GA, MI, WI, AND PA UNTIL THURSDAY DEC 10 AT 3PM TO RESPOND TO SUIT

Those replies have already reached the Court docket, so you kool aid drinkers need not go in a frenzy about that. Also, you un American tRumpsters should consider the following at being hard up for this other evidence free, reckless, seditious and self contracting Texas lawsuit conspiracy in violation of U.S. Constitutional law: How the Supreme Court Can Swiftly Dispose of the Texas Lawsuit Seeking to Overturn the Election [Updated]
The case is within the Court' original jurisdiction. But longstanding precedent still allows the Court to dismiss it without full consideration.

However, because this case is a lawsuit filed by one state against others, it falls within the Court's "original jurisdiction"—the narrow set of cases that can be filed directly in the Supreme Court, without first being considered by lower courts. Therefore, the justices may not be able to reject it in the same way as they just refused to hear a GOP lawsuit seeking to overturn the result in Pennsylvania.

At the same time, however, there is precedent for the Court dispensing with state vs. state original jurisdiction lawsuits without a full hearing or opinion. In 2016, that's exactly what the Court did with a lawsuit filed by Nebraska and Oklahoma seeking to force neighboring Colorado to rescind its legislation legalizing marijuana under state law. The justices disposed of the Nebraska-Oklahoma lawsuit in a one-sentence order. Here it is in all its glory:

The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied.

Nothing prevents the Supreme Court from doing the same thing with the Texas case (which some other red states might sign on to). Like the Texas case, the Nebraska-Oklahoma lawsuit had no real merit and was roundly denounced by legal commentators across the political spectrum. I summarized its weaknesses and linked to critiques by others here. The justices apparently concluded it wasn't worthy of the Court's full attention, and acted accordingly."

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/0...xas-lawsuit-seeking-to-overturn-the-election/
 
PostmodernProphet said:
yes, it wants the SC to determine if those four states violated the constitution.......
Click to expand...

and how does texas have the right to ask the Supreme Court to check out other states? Why is Texas such a hall monitor? How does a state reacting to a FREAKING PANDEMIC by allowing mail in ballots somehow disenfranchise any voter, instead of actually HELPING VOTERS WHO WANT TO VOTE VOTE? Why does Texas believe the Supreme Court is against more people voting during a pandemic by allowing mail in balloting, as many states have done for years and years with no problems at all? in fact, during crybaby trump's rally in Georgia for the two clowns in the senate run-off, there was a big electronic tv type sign that urged the chumps there to use mail-in balloting in the runoffs!! if trump and texas think that is so naughty for the constitution, why are they urging their zombie like voters TO USE MAIL IN BALLOTING? hypocritical, much?


Runoff Republicans urge Georgians to vote by mail despite ...www.ajc.com › politics › runoff-republicans-urge-georgia...
Dec 2, 2020 — Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue and their GOP allies don't want to take any chances. The campaigns have urged voters to cast ballots early, ...
 
Bill said:
You got zero evidence to support your fuckin lie...

When you find some, pls feel free to present it & I will have a look see, till then YOU ARE WHAT YOU ARE......
Click to expand...

its sad when you dig your heels into the ground and pull the dirt in around you......we asked you for proof for four years and all you did was lie.........now just settle down and enjoy the fruits of your labor........
 
Hoosier Daddy said:
and how does texas have the right to ask the Supreme Court to check out other states? .
Click to expand...

because they are subject to the same constitution that Texas is and their voters (as well as the voters of the other twenty states that have now joined as plaintiffs) have a right to be equally treated under the law.........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
because they are subject to the same constitution that Texas is and their voters (as well as the voters of the other twenty states that have now joined as plaintiffs) have a right to be equally treated under the law.........
Click to expand...

Actually they don't. Each state picks it's own method for choosing electors. So if Texas decides that the legislature picks it's electors, and Minnesota allows weeks of early voting and mail in balloting, the citizens of those two states are not treated equally when it comes to voting in a presidential election. But they ARE treated equally under the law, the law in this case being the US Constitution. So the equal protection clause in Bush v. Gore was invoked ONLY because there was only one state involved, and the allegation was that different counties within that state were being treated differently. So once again, you are grotesquely wrong about the equal protection clause. It does not demand that people in one state are treated in the same manner as people in other states, except insofar as the Constitution weighs in to protect certain classes from being treated differently. It's amazing how often you can be wrong.
 
Concart said:
Actually they don't. Each state picks it's own method for choosing electors.
Click to expand...

we aren't talking about how the state picks electors.......we are talking about how they conduct their elections.........how would you feel if for example, Florida passed a law saying "we aren't going to have an election, we're just going to give our electoral votes to the Republicans"?.........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
we aren't talking about how the state picks electors.......we are talking about how they conduct their elections.........how would you feel if for example, Florida passed a law saying "we aren't going to have an election, we're just going to give our electoral votes to the Republicans"?.........
Click to expand...

Well, I might not like it, but it would be 100% legal, and no other state could sue Florida to change it. Of course, it would be exactly the same as what you are now proposing before the Supreme Court. Didn't think this one through, did you?
 
Bigdog said:
I'm no Legal Beagle, but 33 States have faithless elector laws. The choosing of electors is linked to or swayed by the citizen vote.
Click to expand...

True, but they first have to prove there was a problem with the citizen vote which no court has yet accepted. Changes made in election procedures to ensure more voters can legally cast their ballot due to many more mail-in ballots than expected, the pandemic, and problems with the postal service doesn't seem to go against the intent of election laws.

If you mailed in your ballot and it did not arrive by the specified date causing your vote not to count hardly seems fair and does not meet the PA constitution's "free and fair election" provision.

"Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage."
 
PostmodernProphet said:
its sad when you dig your heels into the ground and pull the dirt in around you......we asked you for proof for four years and all you did was lie.........now just settle down and enjoy the fruits of your labor........
Click to expand...

There is no we here, it is you, you rep no one fool, don't forget that FACT.

You are willing to brazenly lie & misreP that we upon you & you alone-
 
Stretch said:
It takes honest, legal elections in all 50 states (or Bamaboy's 57) to determine a legitimate winner. When 4 go rogue and get "creative" on the fly,
that affects the entire legitimacy of the true total where 46 other states played by the rules. A proper federal election needs all 50 states to
participate legitimately.

"A little leaven leavens the whole loaf."
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, Texas has no evidence of any of them going rogue which would be required in a court of law to make that determination. Georgia in their response points out that Texas never mentions a single Georgia law that was violated and then Georgia goes on to cite the laws given the rule making powers to the bodies that made the rules. So basically, Texas is saying that Georgia can't make laws that it made because Texas doesn't like Georgia laws. They have no evidence of Georgia violating any of GA laws. All the allegations Texas makes are simply repeats of challenges that were made in Georgia courts that were dismissed by the courts have not having evidence or validity.
 
Flash said:
True, but they first have to prove there was a problem with the citizen vote which no court has yet accepted. Changes made in election procedures to ensure more voters can legally cast their ballot due to many more mail-in ballots than expected, the pandemic, and problems with the postal service doesn't seem to go against the intent of election laws.

If you mailed in your ballot and it did not arrive by the specified date causing your vote not to count hardly seems fair and does not meet the PA constitution's "free and fair election" provision.

"Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage."
Click to expand...

It looks like Texas is violating the PA Constitution. I'll bet that is a case that the USSC would love to hear.
 
If SCOTUS grants injunctive relief (they won't) there will be a flurry of lawsuits filed by Democratic states against Texas and probably a bunch of other states. That is a guarantee. Pennsylvania would likely lead the way, that brief sounded like it was written by a pissed off person.
 
Flash said:
True, but they first have to prove there was a problem with the citizen vote which no court has yet accepted. Changes made in election procedures to ensure more voters can legally cast their ballot due to many more mail-in ballots than expected, the pandemic, and problems with the postal service doesn't seem to go against the intent of election laws.

If you mailed in your ballot and it did not arrive by the specified date causing your vote not to count hardly seems fair and does not meet the PA constitution's "free and fair election" provision.

"Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage."
Click to expand...

No doubt the pandemic was also used to remove election security safeguards.

All the earlier cases were dismissed simply because they did not effect enough votes to change the NATIONAL election results.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
we aren't talking about how the state picks electors.......we are talking about how they conduct their elections.........how would you feel if for example, Florida passed a law saying "we aren't going to have an election, we're just going to give our electoral votes to the Republicans"?.........
Click to expand...

It is their constitutional power to do so (assuming it does not go against the state constitution).
 
So these 100 Repubs who say the election was fraudulent, then have to admit theirs was too. Do they want their elections overthrown and rerun? Or was it just Biden's election fraudulent and somehow all the others were fair. Does anyone want to tell me how that makes sense?
 
Nordberg said:
So these 100 Repubs who say the election was fraudulent, then have to admit theirs was too. Do they want their elections overthrown and rerun? Or was it just Biden's election fraudulent and somehow all the others were fair. Does anyone want to tell me how that makes sense?
Click to expand...

A mass audit of signatures and voter registration will suffice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top