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

T. A. Gardner said:
Actually, I think Texas has a fairly strong case here. Given five conservative justices... There's a fair chance it's going to succeed.
Click to expand...

NONE. Zero zip mil nada. There will be no argument. The case will be dismissed with no dissent. Period end of story. There is no case there is no standing there is no evidence. How on earth can you be this ignorant. It’s amazing.
 
Concart said:
NONE. Zero zip mil nada. There will be no argument. The case will be dismissed with no dissent. Period end of story. There is no case there is no standing there is no evidence. How on earth can you be this ignorant. It’s amazing.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't bet on it, not after Bush v. Gore...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Actually, I think Texas has a fairly strong case here. Given five conservative justices... There's a fair chance it's going to succeed.
Click to expand...

It's not a case. It's a political stunt.

If it succeeds, our Supreme Court is a much more highly politicized body than it should be. I don't think it is, though.
 
Concart said:
No similarities. It’s amazing how you can conflate the two. One has nothing to do with the other. Unless you think bush and gore were states.
Click to expand...

The Texas suit is about inconsistent following of those state's laws as laid out by their state constitution as well as by violations of the federal constitution. The same thing was at issue in Bush v. Gore. Gore and the Democrats wanted different standards applied to different counties in Florida. The Supreme Court ruled against them. Texas is claiming the same thing here. That those four states didn't follow their state constitutions and the federal constitution in counting votes thus Texas was disenfranchised by those states allowing ballots to be counted that shouldn't have been.

It is the exact same thing.
 
volsrock said:
The states must justify why their unconstitutional cheat-by-mail-in ballots that were not passed through their respective legislatures did not disenfranchise the states like Texas, et al. where voters did everything according to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

"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...r-mail-in-ballots-in-pennsylvania-11603149426

The PA Supreme Court and U. S. Supreme Court have both held the extension for receiving ballots is constitutional although the U. S. Supreme Court rarely rules on cases involving only state law and constitution.

The constitutional provision about legislatures selecting electors involves the electoral college process, not voting regulations and methods.
 
volsrock said:
The states must justify why their unconstitutional cheat-by-mail-in ballots that were not passed through their respective legislatures did not disenfranchise the states like Texas, et al. where voters did everything according to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Who's Constitution? There are more then one you know, Federal, and then State. The lawsuit is over State Constitutions.
 
Yet tRump's kook aid drinking cult followers continue to get the ravaging affect of tRump's genocidal coronavirus at following tRump's lead when it comes to defying the extreme dangers of what the COVID-19 can do to someone in a ugly and horrible way.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The Texas suit is about inconsistent following of those state's laws as laid out by their state constitution as well as by violations of the federal constitution. The same thing was at issue in Bush v. Gore. Gore and the Democrats wanted different standards applied to different counties in Florida. The Supreme Court ruled against them. Texas is claiming the same thing here. That those four states didn't follow their state constitutions and the federal constitution in counting votes thus Texas was disenfranchised by those states allowing ballots to be counted that shouldn't have been.

It is the exact same thing.
Click to expand...

No. First, Texas has no standing to sue. It's own state laws were not violated and it has suffered no damages from what occurred in other states. The Texas Solicitor General would not even get involved in this lawsuit, it was left to (the indicted) Ken Paxton.

The federal constitution refers to the method of selecting electors. It is not about state election regulations involving dates, etc. So, there is not even a federal constitutional issue in these cases.
 
Cruddy Rudy is not feeling good at being in the hospital dealing with the affects of his foolishness and defiance of what the COVID-19 can do to someone. Also Rudy as a result of his age and other health problems, is a poor candidate to survive the ravaging challenges of the coronavirus that he brought upon himself.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The Texas suit is about inconsistent following of those state's laws as laid out by their state constitution as well as by violations of the federal constitution. The same thing was at issue in Bush v. Gore. Gore and the Democrats wanted different standards applied to different counties in Florida. The Supreme Court ruled against them. Texas is claiming the same thing here. That those four states didn't follow their state constitutions and the federal constitution in counting votes thus Texas was disenfranchised by those states allowing ballots to be counted that shouldn't have been.

It is the exact same thing.
Click to expand...

No it isn’t. Texas isn’t harmed by what another state does. Nor does the other states law violate the US constitution. SCOTUS literally ruled on that yesterday. It has as much in common with Bush v Gore as a an elephant has with a fly. Try to think , okay?
 
Concart said:
Let’s say that giant space aliens arrive tomorrow riding pink dragons that all sing beach boys songs. What a can of worms THAT would be. There is a zero percent chance that SCOTUS will hear the case. It will be dismissed without dissent.
Click to expand...
:laugh::laugh:
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Actually, I think Texas has a fairly strong case here. Given five conservative justices... There's a fair chance it's going to succeed.
Click to expand...

Noted: seeking Judaical activism & political favoritism....... :palm:

Good luck, hopefully those judges follow the law & constitution like they were hired to do, not political whims & favoritism.........:rolleyes:
 
So, what are states supposed to respond with by tomorrow? Is the onus on the states in question to prove that they acted within their rights?
 
BartenderElite said:
Trump supporters aren't gonna stop trying to disenfranchise voters until inauguration day.
Click to expand...

no one is disenfranchising any voters......the suit only asks that the court prohibit counting ballots received from people who did NOT vote in accordance with the laws of their state........
 
Flash said:
"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...r-mail-in-ballots-in-pennsylvania-11603149426

The PA Supreme Court and U. S. Supreme Court have both held the extension for receiving ballots is constitutional although the U. S. Supreme Court rarely rules on cases involving only state law and constitution.

The constitutional provision about legislatures selecting electors involves the electoral college process, not voting regulations and methods.
Click to expand...

sorry.....the PA supreme court doesn't have the power to change election laws......only the legislature does......we've covered this before......
 
Concart said:
No it isn’t. Texas isn’t harmed by what another state does. Nor does the other states law violate the US constitution. SCOTUS literally ruled on that yesterday. It has as much in common with Bush v Gore as a an elephant has with a fly. Try to think , okay?
Click to expand...

actually you are wrong......Bush v Gore was decided on the constitutional requirement that votes may not be treated unequally......the contention here is that the votes of people from Texas are not being treated equally with votes from people of these four states......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no one is disenfranchising any voters......the suit only asks that the court prohibit counting ballots received from people who did NOT vote in accordance with the laws of their state........
Click to expand...

No; it's seeking to essentially leave the decision on the electors up to state legislatures.

Honestly, if SCOTUS rules in favor (which I could see them doing just to punt the issue), Trump probably ends up winning. He'll lean on the GOP-controlled legislatures with everything he's got, and they'll probably acquiesce given GOP behavior to this point.

This is a very big decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top