Former Judge Burke: Understanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas’ election suit

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
695
Points
130
See: Understanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas’ election suit

1610917736619.png


Former Judge Kevin S. Burke



Retired Judge Burke, in his desire to condone the undermining of our federal elections in which a number of States engaged in corrupted election practices, quotes Wyoming Republican Gov. Mark Gordon as succinctly saying, “The relief that Texas seeks would undermine a foundational premise of our federalist system: the idea that states are sovereigns, free to govern themselves. The courts have no more business ordering the People’s representatives how to choose their electors than they do ordering the People how to choose their dinners.”



Of course, both Burke and Gov. Gordon suspiciously ignore that our federal Constitution does indeed provide a number of agreed upon orders with respect to federal elections. Aside from the order contained in the “Elector’s clause” of our Constitution, that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress …” etc., see e.g.:



Our Constitution by its 14th Amendment provides a penalty for an abridgement of the right to vote, making an abridgement federally protected.



By our Constitution’s 15th Amendment, the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.



By the 19th Amendment the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.



By the 24th Amendment the right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reasons of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.



And by the 26th Amendment, the right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.



And so, both Burke and Gov. Gordon’s assertion, that “The courts have no more business ordering the People’s representatives how to choose their electors than they do ordering the People how to choose their dinners”, is a gross misrepresentation of our nation’s rule of law.



So, what actually constitutes an abridgement of the right to vote, with respect to a federal election? That is the fundamental question to be answered ___ a question which our Supreme Court refused to address when failing to give an evidentiary hearing to the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT



If a State’s employees who count federal election results are free to count illegal ballots ___ ballots which do not meet the State’s adopted voting requirements and restrictions ___ would that constitute an “abridgement” of the federally protected right to vote? The answer to this question is an obvious resounding ‘Yes”, as each illegal ballot counted in a state would in effect cancel out other Citizen’s legally casts ballots in that State, and thus be an infringement.



But there is a more important observation concerning the allowance by a state to engage in illegal and corrupted voting practices with respect to federal elections, as distinguished from elections which a local. Allowing Illegal voting practices and corruption with regard to federal elections in one state, or a number of states, creates a cognizable injury and threat to the remaining states and to our very democratic system of government!



Indeed! The corruption of a federal election in one state is without question an assault and cognizable injury upon the entire United States, her democratic system of government, and her citizens.



As succinctly stated by a Justice of our Supreme Court ___ when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state "they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941).



Former Justice Burke, as witnessed by his absurd commentary, is an indication of how shallow minded thinking is eroding the rule of law and the miracle created by our Founding Fathers.





JWK



When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.
 

excalibur

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
2,584
Reaction score
4,140
Points
1,940
Texas has no business how Pennsylvania conducts their elections.

No Dog in the fight

But they [Texas] do have an interest here, as it was the PA Supreme Court that interfered with the PA Legislatures' enactments, and only a state legislature has the power over their state's electors. Nowhere is any court granted any authority that will alter the matter decided upon by the state legislatures; that power given to the state legislatures is plenary and only Congress can amend it. That is per the Constitution.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
218,814
Reaction score
45,097
Points
2,190
Texas has no business how Pennsylvania conducts their elections.

No Dog in the fight

But they [Texas] do have an interest here, as it was the PA Supreme Court that interfered with the PA Legislatures' enactments, and only a state legislature has the power over their state's electors. Nowhere is any court granted any authority that will alter the matter.
WTF does the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have to do with Texas?

They are Pennsylvania’s electors. Texas can worry about it’s own electors.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
26,067
Reaction score
6,084
Points
215
Texas has no business how Pennsylvania conducts their elections.

No Dog in the fight

But they [Texas] do have an interest here, as it was the PA Supreme Court that interfered with the PA Legislatures' enactments, and only a state legislature has the power over their state's electors. Nowhere is any court granted any authority that will alter the matter.
The court simply ruled that you can't argue to overturn a law after the fact. The Republicans and Democrats agreed on a bi-partisan rule change. The Republican governor signed the law into affect. No one said a word. After Trump lost he cried foul. The courts said too bad now.
 

excalibur

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
2,584
Reaction score
4,140
Points
1,940
WTF does the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have to do with Texas?

They are Pennsylvania’s electors. Texas can worry about it’s own electors.

Yeah, I knew you would play dumb.

The Texas lawsuit is over the PA Supreme Court ruling. Duh.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
695
Points
130
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
695
Points
130
Find yourself a safe spot already. Trump lost.
:ahole-1:
This is about the sanctity of our federal elections.

JWK

Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
218,814
Reaction score
45,097
Points
2,190
WTF does the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have to do with Texas?

They are Pennsylvania’s electors. Texas can worry about it’s own electors.

Yeah, I knew you would play dumb.

The Texas lawsuit is over the PA Supreme Court ruling. Duh.
Ruling on what? Duh

The assignment of Pennsylvania electors is none of Texas’s business.

The 6-3 Conservative SCOTUS laughed at Texas
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
218,814
Reaction score
45,097
Points
2,190
Texas has no business how Pennsylvania conducts their elections.

No Dog in the fight
Of course they have a dog in the fight. They have ever since they joined the Union. States may leave. We'll see. Stolen elections have consequences.
Conservatives were all about States assigning electoral votes in 2016.

Now, they want other states to participate in the process
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,295
Reaction score
21,970
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
WTF does the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have to do with Texas?

They are Pennsylvania’s electors. Texas can worry about it’s own electors.

Yeah, I knew you would play dumb.

The Texas lawsuit is over the PA Supreme Court ruling. Duh.
In order to have standing in a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling ................... the first thing to do is be a Pennsylvanian.

Friggin' DUH.
 

Meathead

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
34,297
Reaction score
8,158
Points
1,330
Location
Prague, Czech Republic

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,295
Reaction score
21,970
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Find yourself a safe spot already. Trump lost.
:ahole-1:
This is about the sanctity of our federal elections.
No, it's about the tenuousity of your sanity.

This just in --- Pennsylvania's presidential election is a state election, not a federal one. The federal one is conducted by the Electoral College. And that happened, a month ago. And your freaks LOST.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
695
Points
130
The assignment of Pennsylvania electors is none of Texas’s business.
:rolleyes: :poke:

How they are assigned is the business of every state in the Union, e.g., see the Elector's clause of the Constitution.

JWK

You bet Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff have won. Every parasitic rat found their way to the voting booth to vote to get their piece of “free government cheese”, just as they did in Venezuela and Cuba, and now suffer the poisonous consequences of their actions.
 

JoeMoma

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2014
Messages
17,266
Reaction score
4,813
Points
290
Kind of like an video replay in a sport such as football, there has to be indisputable proof to overturn a play call. I, like many people, am skeptical about the last presidential election. There seem to be many signs of shenanigans going on; however, the evidence of the shenanigan would have to be overwhelming and undeniable before any court judges to step in.
 

excalibur

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
2,584
Reaction score
4,140
Points
1,940
Ruling on what? Duh

The assignment of Pennsylvania electors is none of Texas’s business.

The 6-3 Conservative SCOTUS laughed at Texas

Yeah, you are either completely ignorant of the PA Supreme Court ruling, which interfered with the PA Legislatures' plenary power over the electors.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
26,067
Reaction score
6,084
Points
215
Find yourself a safe spot already. Trump lost.
:ahole-1:
This is about the sanctity of our federal elections.

JWK

Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
Every single lawsuit was tossed. Every single one.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top