Nope Austin was where the tech is so the educated smart people are there which you know leaves you out
Texas sues Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania over election fraud
- Thread starter Bigdog
- Start date
Nope Austin was where the tech is so the educated smart people are there which you know leaves you out
Peace n Safety
Banned
Lefty’s are sweatin their nuts off Hehehehe
About this case? Sorry charlie. This case will be dismissed before the sun comes up tomorrow. We're just chomping at the bit to laugh at you.
It seems you are completely ignoring all the basic tenets of lawsuits.
The plaintiff must be able to show actual damages. (They haven't since Texas gets to send their electors.) There must be a remedy. The remedy must be reasonable.
No judge in his right mind would accept that the remedy to protect 11,000,000 Texas voters is to throw out the votes of 22,000,000 other voters.
The remedy for frivolous lawsuits is to request the court require the filer of the lawsuit to pay their legal fees. My guess is that will be part of their response.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Scotus will most likely approve the Texas case in 8-1 or 9-0 vote.
Arrrggghh, as a Texan, I think it should come out of his paycheck. This has made a lot of folks angry.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
His thinker's broke. Not his fault.
I just addressed your flailings on the other thread. you were 100% wrong on Sec of state etc
The damages are to the voters of the states filing suit -by the states in question adopting Unconstituional voting practices outside of Legislative intent. Therefore casting the filers voters in doubt by unConstituional practices (fraud)
In PA's case the Republican legislature
SPECIFICALLY WOULD NOT EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR ABSENTEE BALLOTS PAST ELECTION DAY
they did extend it TO election day.
The Sec of State is an executive position -and violated legislative intent along with an ctivist PS Supreme court
Your position completely ignores court rulings on situations like this.
First all the Supreme Court already refused to take up an appeal on this exact same argument in October. That means that the USSC is the court that had final say in leaving this ruling in place. So any errors were the result of the USSC refusing to take the case. You are arguing that the USSC violated the Constitution which I doubt they will be willing to accept.
Other Supreme court rulings have said that voters should not be punished because of errors by election officials such as if the voters were given wrong information or even illegal information. As long as the voter acted in good faith their votes should be counted. Since the actual error that left this in place was a ruling by the State Supreme Court and a denial of appeal by the USSC court the fault is not the result of the voters so the votes should count based on legal precedent.
Then you have failed to tell us how many ballots actually came in after Nov 3. A quick Google check says that only 10,000 arrived after Nov 3. Trump lost the PA election by 81,000 votes. Those 10,000 ballots would not change the outcome of the election. The legal precedent is that unless the illegal or fraudulent votes would change the outcome the election stands. In this case, it would clearly not change the election so Biden won PA.
There is no Constitutional or rational reason to throw out the votes of 7 million PA voters. The alleged illegal votes being counted would not have changed the election. The voters acted in good faith believing the USSC's refusal to accept the appeal was the final word on voting.
Into the Night
Verified User
Denial of evidence.
Into the Night
Verified User
And they are not being asked to by either lawsuit.
Into the Night
Verified User
Put down the bong dude, you're hallucinating again.
Just to show you how idiotic your position is, let's accept that another state can claim that their voters are harmed by voting practices in another state. Under that ruling, a state could claim that Texas' districts are unfairly drawn using gerrymandering which causes Texas to elect more Republicans then they normally would thus harming that other state by how Texas is represented in Congress. The Republican voters in Texas only need to get 48% of the total vote to elect 70% Republicans which in turn dilutes the Democratic votes in every other state. Because the districts are gerrymandered it means that the legislature in Texas is not really representative of Texas voters and is therefore Unconstitutional under the equal protection clause and any action by the Texas legislature because of that gerrymandering harms every other state in the Union.
Into the Night
Verified User
Denial of history. Denial of court docket. Denial of the Constitution of the United States.
Into the Night
Verified User
The United States is not a democracy and never was.
The Democrats were not lawful.
Putin wants Biden.
SCOTUS is legitimate. See the Constitution of the United States.
Into the Night
Verified User
You don't get to speak for God. You only get to speak for yourself.
Into the Night
Verified User
Not quite.Yep, we can speculate all we want, Scotus opinion is the only one that counts.
SCOTUS can order these State legislatures to either choose the electors themselves or abstain. If they choose their electors, there is the slight possibility that Trump could reach 270 and win through the Electoral College. At the very least the 12th amendment will trigger.
A legislature can simply choose it's electors. Indeed, the US Constitution itself gives them this authority. It is why the legislatures of a State, and ONLY the legislatures of a State can certify a presidential election result or choose their own electors.
Into the Night
Verified User
Into the Night
Verified User
One of the biggest cases ever for SCOTUS to dodge. roberts is already doing the weasel dance
Of course he's dancing! He's getting shot at by 18 shotguns!
