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

volsrock

Verified User
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.
 
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.
 
Our Tennessee fruitcake has the inside dope.
Expect big things.

[From where, one wonders, do these idiots come? Or from what?]
 
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.

Those other states did not disenfranchise Texas because their voters elected the Republican electors who will cast their electoral votes on December 14. The popular vote winner will most likely win all the state's electoral votes. What happens in the other states is irrelevant to the process in Texas.
 
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.
Lie, note there is no citation... so desperate they are making up all kinds of shit.
 
Bullsh!t: SCOTUS has denied tRump and his sewer goons' effort to disenfranchise Pennsylvania like what occurred in 2016 - U.S. Supreme Court rejects Republican challenge to Biden's Pennsylvania win

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday handed a defeat to Republicans seeking to throw out up to 2.5 million mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania as they try to undo President Donald Trump’s election loss, with the justices refusing to block the state from formalizing President-elect Joe Biden’s victory there. https://www.reuters.com/article/usa...enge-to-bidens-pennsylvania-win-idUSKBN28I35L

An important Electoral College deadline has arrived. Here's why that's bad news for Trump

Trump's long-shot bid to overturn the election became more far-fetched Tuesday after most states appeared to meet the deadline to guarantee that Congress must accept their electors.

Tuesday marked the "safe harbor" deadline. Federal law requires that Congress recognize the slates of electors chosen by states that have resolved legal fights, recounts and other election disputes by this date.

The deadline came after the Trump campaign lost a barrage of court challenges in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada – each battleground states President-elect Joe Biden won – seeking to overturn the Nov. 3 presidential election.

Federal judges in Michigan and Georgia on Monday dismissed separate lawsuits from former Trump attorney Sidney Powell, an ally of the president, who tried to overturn results in those states with unfounded allegations of voter fraud. On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request by Republican Trump allies in Pennsylvania to invalidate the state's presidential election. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ting-trumps-bid-overturn-election/6478954002/ Suck it up kool aid drinking buttercup!
 
Last edited:
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.

ROTFLMFAO!!! The two lawsuits make completely different claims dumbshit. They don’t pass on one to hear the other. This one is gone too. Fuck are you stupid.
 
The 4 states involved violated the Constitution. Votes in other states who played by the rules were disenfranchised by their cheating. There has to be a level playing field, all following the same rules.
 
Let's just say for a moment that the Supreme Court decides in favor of Texas and that MI, PA, et. al., held illegal elections that violated their state and the national constitution. That could open up one really giant shit storm of problems. It might not just be 'throw out ballots.' It could be it has to be done over or something.

Yea, Trump really opened up a huge can of worms, but it was a can filled and put on the shelf by Democrats...
 
On to the Supreme Court :cool:

**************************

Kobach: Texas Case Challenges Election Directly at Supreme Court

Kris W. Kobach
7 Dec 2020 5:32

On Monday, just before midnight, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit that is far more important than all of the others surrounding the presidential election of November 3rd.

Texas brought a suit against four states that did something they cannot do: they violated the U.S. Constitution in their conduct of the presidential election. And this violation occurred regardless of the amount of election fraud that may have resulted. The four defendant states are Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Texas filed the suit directly in the Supreme Court.
Article III of the Constitution lists a small number of categories of cases in which the Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction.” One of those categories concerns “Controversies between two or more states.” Texas’s suit is exactly that. The Supreme Court has opined in the past that it may decline to accept such cases, at its discretion. But it is incumbent upon the high court to take this case, especially when it presents a such a cut-and-dried question of constitutional law, and when it could indirectly decide who is sworn in as President on January 20, 2021.

The Texas suit is clear, and it presents a compelling case. The four offending states each violated the U.S. Constitution in two ways.

First, they violated the Electors Clause of Article II of the Constitution when executive or judicial officials in the states changed the rules of the election without going through the state legislatures. The Electors Clause requires that each State “shall appoint” its presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

In the early years of the Republic, most state legislatures appointed their presidential electors directly, without holding a popular election for President. That would change during the early decades of the nineteenth century. But the constitutional principle remained the same. Regardless of whether a state appoints its electors by a vote in the legislature or by a vote of the people, it is the state legislature — and only the state legislature — that sets the rules.

Thus, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended by three days the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots, contrary to the law passed by the state legislature, the state court changed the rules in violation of the Electors Clause. Similarly, when Georgia’s Secretary of State responded to a lawsuit by entering into a Compromise Settlement Agreement and Release (i.e. a consent decree) with the Democratic Party of Georgia, and modified the signature verification requirements spelled out by Georgia law, that changing of the rules violated the Electors Clause.

The second constitutional violation occurred when individual counties in each of the four states changed the way that they would receive, evaluate, or treat the ballots. Twenty years ago, in the landmark case of Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when one Florida county treated ballots one way, and another Florida county treated ballots a different way. Voters had the constitutional right to have their ballots treated equally from county to county.

So when election officials in Wayne County, Michigan, ignored the requirements of Michigan law and denied poll watchers access to vote counting, while other counties in Michigan followed the law, that violated the Equal Protection Clause. Similarly, in Wisconsin, when the Administrator of the City of Milwaukee Elections Commission ignored the requirements of Wisconsin law and directed election workers to write in the addresses of witnesses on the envelopes containing mail-in ballots, while ballots without witness addresses were deemed invalid elsewhere, that resulted in the unequal treatment of ballots in the state.

Importantly, the Texas lawsuit presents a pure question of law. It is not dependent upon disputed facts. Although these unconstitutional changes to the election rules could have facilitated voter fraud, the State of Texas doesn’t need to prove a single case of fraud to win. It is enough that the four states violated the Constitution.

The lawsuit asks the Supreme Court to remand the appointment of electors in the four states back to the state legislatures. As the Supreme Court said in 1892 in the case of McPherson v. Blacker, “Whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time…”.

If Texas prevails, the four state legislatures could follow any number of courses in appointing their presidential electors. They could assess the election results and try to exclude those ballots that were counted in violation of state law in order to determine a winner, or they could divide their Electoral College votes between the two candidates, or they could follow a different path. But they have to follow the Constitution in whatever they do.

In the rest of country, the states followed the constitutional rules in appointing presidential electors. The offending states cannot be allowed to violate those same rules. It’s not just a matter of constitutional law. It’s a matter of basic fairness.

Kris W. Kobach is an expert in immigration law and election fraud. He served as Kansas Secretary of State during 2011-2019. He was a professor of constitutional law and immigration law during 1996-2011 at the University of Missouri-KC.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...hallenges-election-directly-at-supreme-court/
 
tRump's kool aid drinking tRumptards care nothing about citations, facts or the truth but their usual delusional and un American crap.
 
On to the Supreme Court :cool:

**************************

Kobach: Texas Case Challenges Election Directly at Supreme Court

Kris W. Kobach
7 Dec 2020 5:32

On Monday, just before midnight, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit that is far more important than all of the others surrounding the presidential election of November 3rd.

Texas brought a suit against four states that did something they cannot do: they violated the U.S. Constitution in their conduct of the presidential election. And this violation occurred regardless of the amount of election fraud that may have resulted. The four defendant states are Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Texas filed the suit directly in the Supreme Court.
Article III of the Constitution lists a small number of categories of cases in which the Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction.” One of those categories concerns “Controversies between two or more states.” Texas’s suit is exactly that. The Supreme Court has opined in the past that it may decline to accept such cases, at its discretion. But it is incumbent upon the high court to take this case, especially when it presents a such a cut-and-dried question of constitutional law, and when it could indirectly decide who is sworn in as President on January 20, 2021.

The Texas suit is clear, and it presents a compelling case. The four offending states each violated the U.S. Constitution in two ways.

First, they violated the Electors Clause of Article II of the Constitution when executive or judicial officials in the states changed the rules of the election without going through the state legislatures. The Electors Clause requires that each State “shall appoint” its presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

In the early years of the Republic, most state legislatures appointed their presidential electors directly, without holding a popular election for President. That would change during the early decades of the nineteenth century. But the constitutional principle remained the same. Regardless of whether a state appoints its electors by a vote in the legislature or by a vote of the people, it is the state legislature — and only the state legislature — that sets the rules.

Thus, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended by three days the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots, contrary to the law passed by the state legislature, the state court changed the rules in violation of the Electors Clause. Similarly, when Georgia’s Secretary of State responded to a lawsuit by entering into a Compromise Settlement Agreement and Release (i.e. a consent decree) with the Democratic Party of Georgia, and modified the signature verification requirements spelled out by Georgia law, that changing of the rules violated the Electors Clause.

The second constitutional violation occurred when individual counties in each of the four states changed the way that they would receive, evaluate, or treat the ballots. Twenty years ago, in the landmark case of Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when one Florida county treated ballots one way, and another Florida county treated ballots a different way. Voters had the constitutional right to have their ballots treated equally from county to county.

So when election officials in Wayne County, Michigan, ignored the requirements of Michigan law and denied poll watchers access to vote counting, while other counties in Michigan followed the law, that violated the Equal Protection Clause. Similarly, in Wisconsin, when the Administrator of the City of Milwaukee Elections Commission ignored the requirements of Wisconsin law and directed election workers to write in the addresses of witnesses on the envelopes containing mail-in ballots, while ballots without witness addresses were deemed invalid elsewhere, that resulted in the unequal treatment of ballots in the state.

Importantly, the Texas lawsuit presents a pure question of law. It is not dependent upon disputed facts. Although these unconstitutional changes to the election rules could have facilitated voter fraud, the State of Texas doesn’t need to prove a single case of fraud to win. It is enough that the four states violated the Constitution.

The lawsuit asks the Supreme Court to remand the appointment of electors in the four states back to the state legislatures. As the Supreme Court said in 1892 in the case of McPherson v. Blacker, “Whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time…”.

If Texas prevails, the four state legislatures could follow any number of courses in appointing their presidential electors. They could assess the election results and try to exclude those ballots that were counted in violation of state law in order to determine a winner, or they could divide their Electoral College votes between the two candidates, or they could follow a different path. But they have to follow the Constitution in whatever they do.

In the rest of country, the states followed the constitutional rules in appointing presidential electors. The offending states cannot be allowed to violate those same rules. It’s not just a matter of constitutional law. It’s a matter of basic fairness.

Kris W. Kobach is an expert in immigration law and election fraud. He served as Kansas Secretary of State during 2011-2019. He was a professor of constitutional law and immigration law during 1996-2011 at the University of Missouri-KC.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...hallenges-election-directly-at-supreme-court/

such desperation, breitbart :palm:
 
Trump supporters aren't gonna stop trying to disenfranchise voters until inauguration day.

Only then can we move on as a nation. Here's hoping voters don't forget in the next few election cycles.
 
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.
10043304.gif
LET US ALL BOW OUR HEADS, LOOK TOWARDS DC & THE TRUMP ESTABLISHMENT SHINNING ON THAT HILL & CLICK OUR HEALS TOGETHER FOR TRUMP
10043304.gif


Beg those judges to be activists & turn the country & elections over to trump forever, amen
 
Let's just say for a moment that the Supreme Court decides in favor of Texas and that MI, PA, et. al., held illegal elections that violated their state and the national constitution. That could open up one really giant shit storm of problems. It might not just be 'throw out ballots.' It could be it has to be done over or something.

Yea, Trump really opened up a huge can of worms, but it was a can filled and put on the shelf by Democrats...

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.
 
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.

Logical fallacy using Reductio ad absurdum
 
Got damned random sentence generator. Nothing on any level made sense.

It literally was stuff with things.

Reality has a bias, it says you are a fucking cult moron. Sorry life did that, or not I am a crow. I would eat your decay, if it were tasty but even that shit is rancid for a crow. So I'll pass.

You tire the dead.
 
Back
Top