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

Flash said:
Government is not set up so that every necessary change has to go back to the legislature. They often have provisions giving those implementing the law power to make rules meeting new situations.

The Georgia response to the Texas case describes the authority of the State Elections Board to make changes and explains those changes. This authority was provided by the state legislature:

"Under Georgia law, the State Elections Board has authority “[t]o formulate, adopt, and promulgate such rules and regulations . . . as will be conducive to the fair, legal, and orderly conduct of primaries and elections” so long as those rules are “consistent with law.” O.C.G.A. 21-2-31(2). The State Elections Board exercised that statutory authority by adopting State Rule 183-1-14-0.9-.15. Indeed, a different statute—O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386—allows the State Elections Board to preliminarily review absentee ballots before Election Day, and expressly provides the county election superintendent with “discretion” to tabulate ballots prior to the close of the polls even in regular times."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...0145849997_Georgia -- Brief in Opposition.pdf
Click to expand...
you need to do research.
In Pa for example the Republican legislature DID change the rules for absentees to be accepted up to election day.
The Sec of state -thru the courts changed it to 3 days after - he had already gone to the legislature to try for an extension and they turned it down

The Supreme Court of PA had absolutely no business getting involved;all plenary power to set terms of the election belong to the Legislature
 
Flash said:
It is their constitutional power to do so (assuming it does not go against the state constitution).
Click to expand...

you idiots are taking a provision that gives the state authority to choose the people who go to the electoral college and trying to claim there should be no elections........of course, that is the direction I should assume demmycunts to be headed.....
 
Stretch said:
Changing election rules must go through procedures in the state legislatures, not governors and secretaries of state.
Click to expand...

What a crock of shit. Your claim is false. A legislature sets the manner of an election by passing laws. Laws can say that the Sec of State or Election boards set the location of the election and the rules for conducting that election. In that case the Legislature passed the law that delegated rule making to other bodies thus meeting the requirements of the US Constitution.

The constitution says this - The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof. If we follow your logic then the Legislature must also designate the place of the election which would mean any polling place not named in the law passed by the legislature would be illegal.
A quick check of Texas law shows it does not name even a single polling place in Texas but instead has delegated that duty to an election commission court. I guess that means that the election in Texas violated the Constitution since the legislature did not designate the place of the election.
 
dukkha said:
you need to do research.
In Pa for example the Republican legislature DID change the rules for absentees to be accepted up to election day.
The Sec of state -thru the courts changed it to 3 days after - he had already gone to the legislature to try for an extension and they turned it down

The Supreme Court of PA had absolutely no business getting involved;all plenary power to set terms of the election belong to the Legislature
Click to expand...

And even if you were to throw out the 10,000 ballots that arrived after election day, Biden still wins PA since he leads by 81,000 votes. The courts have ruled that if the alleged illegal ballots do not change the outcome then there is no legal case to be judged.
 
Hoosier Daddy said:
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, ...
Click to expand...

THERE IS NO PANDEMIC YOU POS LIAR


Blessings
 
PostmodernProphet said:
only until the voters threw it out.....
Click to expand...

Of course. That's not the point. The voters have spoken. You want those votes tossed. Each and every one of them. Speaks volumes about the depth of your worship of Trump. It's the most un American thing you could possibly propose, and yet here you are.
 
dukkha said:
you need to do research.
In Pa for example the Republican legislature DID change the rules for absentees to be accepted up to election day.
The Sec of state -thru the courts changed it to 3 days after - he had already gone to the legislature to try for an extension and they turned it down

The Supreme Court of PA had absolutely no business getting involved;all plenary power to set terms of the election belong to the Legislature
Click to expand...

So the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the case? Results would have been the same--election stands.

I did research and read the case. The lawsuit did not claim there were any any illegal voters or voter fraud and did not treat the Trump and Biden votes any differently. Therefore, no damages occurred and throwing out millions of votes serve no purpose.

Each county can make rules and guidance for workers. Law only says watchers are to be allowed in the room but remain outside the enclosed space where votes are counted. Counties decide how close they can get.

"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has long “liberally construed” its Election Code “to protect voters’ right to vote,” even when a ballot violates a technical requirement. Shambach v. Bickhart, 845 A.2d 793, 802 (Pa. 2004). “Technicalities should not be used to make the right of the voter insecure.”
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you idiots are taking a provision that gives the state authority to choose the people who go to the electoral college and trying to claim there should be no elections........of course, that is the direction I should assume demmycunts to be headed.....
Click to expand...

I haven't heard anybody claim there should be no elections. However, some of the Republicans are advocating the state legislature choose the electors which makes the election moot in that state disenfranchising millions of voters. Plus, they are trying to do it after the election after the voters believed their votes were choosing the electors-probably unconstitutional.
 
Flash said:
So the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the case? Results would have been the same--election stands.

I did research and read the case. The lawsuit did not claim there were any any illegal voters or voter fraud and did not treat the Trump and Biden votes any differently. Therefore, no damages occurred and throwing out millions of votes serve no purpose.

Each county can make rules and guidance for workers. Law only says watchers are to be allowed in the room but remain outside the enclosed space where votes are counted. Counties decide how close they can get.

"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has long “liberally construed” its Election Code “to protect voters’ right to vote,” even when a ballot violates a technical requirement. Shambach v. Bickhart, 845 A.2d 793, 802 (Pa. 2004). “Technicalities should not be used to make the right of the voter insecure.”
Click to expand...

Sometimes I disagree with you, but I give you credit for diligently doing your homework. That’s rare, indeed.

And I do appreciate your efforts to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top