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

PostmodernProphet said:
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......
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Each state makes their own rules. So of course I'm right, and you're wrong. Nothing new there. 9-0. They will not hear the case.
 
BartenderElite said:
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.
Click to expand...

And a very easy one. States decide how they pick electors. Next? There is no chance the court will hear the case.
 
BartenderElite said:
Then why did they even set a deadline for the states to respond?
Click to expand...

They did that with the Pennsylvania suit as well. They can't just dismiss the lawsuit out of hand. But dismiss it they will. This one is easy. They ruled YESTERDAY that there was no violation of US Constitution by Pennsylvania. Now Texas wants them to change their minds. Why would they do that? The answer is they wouldn't. This lawsuit is completely frivolous, it's being done so the Trumptards can maintain their erection for a couple more days. There will be no happy ending for them.
 
volsrock said:
They asked for a response from PA BEFORE the Texas suit was filed. Looks like after reading the Texas suit they decided to go ahead and deny hearing the PA suit in favor of hearing the Texas suit that incorporates the same issues, only includes more states.
Click to expand...

Anybody with a brain sees this is nothing but a publicity stunt
 
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...

It seems you are a complete moron when it comes to court filings. The Supreme Court said nothing of the sort.

Courts require both sides to file motions so the court can consider both sides. I'll give you a hint on this one. The Supreme Court will side with the other states and rule that Texas has no standing. It may even be a one sentence ruling with the word "denied" in it.
 
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...

Texas has no case here. The US Constitution clearly gives each state the power to set the rules for their own elections. That power can not be usurped by another state. There is no amendment taking that power away from each state so any conservative justice that follows the US Constitution can only rule one way. Texas' lawsuit is denied.
 
BartenderElite said:
Then why did they even set a deadline for the states to respond?
Click to expand...

They set a deadline to respond because every court case has a plaintiff and a defendant. The defendant is always given time to respond to a lawsuit. In this case the defendant will simply cite laws and court rulings that show that Texas has no standing to sue. The Supreme Court will agree with the defendants.
 
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...

Color me shocked you have no idea what Bush v. Gore was about.

#1, it is expressly NOT constitutional precedent.

#2, it involved a recount, within an individual state, and involved supposed application of the equal protection clause.

No such issues are invoked here.

What is at issue here is the fact that there is zero factual basis for any suit whatsoever. Very different from a recount case in a state with 8 million voters and a 530-vote difference.

And finally, Bush v. Gore was a total miscarriage of justice and a violation of states' rights and federalism and all the shit you supposed conservatives hold dear, but that's just an aside.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
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......
Click to expand...

In that case, every non-swing voter in every state has standing to sue under equal protection over the electoral college.

Idiot.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sorry.....the PA supreme court doesn't have the power to change election laws......only the legislature does......we've covered this before......
Click to expand...

You are confusing laws governing election procedures with laws determining how the state will choose electors.

Once the legislature passes a law the executive branch has discretion in administering that law and adhering to the state constitutional requirements for a free and fair election.

If you lived in city that was evacuating due to a hurricane or some disaster that was going to hit on election day are you saying the governor or county officials could not delay that election until after the natural disaster?

If no changes can be made to those dates set by the legislative branch that means the Supreme Court cannot delay the date for electors to meet as being requested by the Texas lawsuit because only Congress has the power to set that date.
 
Jerome said:
Color me shocked you have no idea what Bush v. Gore was about.

#1, it is expressly NOT constitutional precedent.

#2, it involved a recount, within an individual state, and involved supposed application of the equal protection clause.

No such issues are invoked here.

What is at issue here is the fact that there is zero factual basis for any suit whatsoever. Very different from a recount case in a state with 8 million voters and a 530-vote difference.

And finally, Bush v. Gore was a total miscarriage of justice and a violation of states' rights and federalism and all the shit you supposed conservatives hold dear, but that's just an aside.
Click to expand...

Color you ignorant or maybe just oblivious...

Primary Holding
Despite violating the Fourteenth Amendment by using disparate vote-counting procedures in different counties, Florida did not need to complete a recount in the 2000 presidential election because it could not be accomplished in a constitutionally valid way within the time limit set by federal law for resolving these controversies.
Click to expand...
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/

The Supreme court's opinion trumps (pun intended) yours...
 
ANDREW C. MCCARTHY at National Review goes so far as to call this lawsuit frivolous....says that there is zero chance SCOTUS will act on it.

Sounds Right.
 
A small minority of blue states, not following the Constitution will not dilute/steal the election from the entire rest of the nation who played by the rules during voting/ballot procedures.
 
Stretch said:
A small minority of blue states, not following the Constitution will not dilute/steal the election from the entire rest of the nation who played by the rules during voting/ballot procedures.
Click to expand...

So, you're good w/ legislatures designating faithless electors, and basically discarding the votes in their states.

Thanks for clarifying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top