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

OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,379
Reaction score
708
Points
130
Every single lawsuit was tossed. Every single one.
And which lawsuit gave an evidentiary hearing to the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT i.e., reviewed evidence and listened to sworn witnesses?

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.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,526
Reaction score
22,090
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Every single lawsuit was tossed. Every single one.
And which lawsuit gave an evidentiary hearing to the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT i.e., reviewed evidence and listened to sworn witnesses?
Why are you counterfeiting my posts? That's prohibited here.

Aren't you the same yoyo who waddled in here cross-posting the same shit on 13 different websites until I busted you? Yes you are. I remember your name.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
219,049
Reaction score
45,291
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
What?
I can’t figure out Republicans either

One minute they are all about State Rights, the next they want other states to interfere with how you choose electors

I think they just like to cheat
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
219,049
Reaction score
45,291
Points
2,190
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.
Which has WHAT to do with the state of Texas?
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,379
Reaction score
708
Points
130
Every single lawsuit was tossed. Every single one.
And which lawsuit gave an evidentiary hearing to the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT i.e., reviewed evidence and listened to sworn witnesses?
Why are you counterfeiting my posts? That's prohibited here.

Aren't you the same yoyo who waddled in here cross-posting the same shit on 13 different websites until I busted you? Yes you are. I remember your name.
Sorry! I don't know how that happened. I was actually responding to this post:

Every single lawsuit was tossed. Every single one.
Once again, please accept my appology.

JWK
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,379
Reaction score
708
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.
Every single lawsuit was tossed. Every single one.
And which lawsuit gave an evidentiary hearing to the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT i.e., reviewed evidence and listened to sworn witnesses?

JWK
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
26,771
Reaction score
6,348
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.
And which lawsuit gave an evidentiary hearing to the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT i.e., reviewed evidence and listened to sworn witnesses?

JWK
Texas had no standing.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,379
Reaction score
708
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.
Every single lawsuit was tossed. Every single one.
And which lawsuit gave an evidentiary hearing to the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT i.e., reviewed evidence and listened to sworn witnesses?

JWK
Texas had no standing.
You never answered the question. Which lawsuit gave an evidentiary hearing to the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT i.e., reviewed evidence and listened to sworn witnesses?

In regard to standing, that is addressed in the op.

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).

JWK
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
26,771
Reaction score
6,348
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.
And which lawsuit gave an evidentiary hearing to the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT i.e., reviewed evidence and listened to sworn witnesses?

JWK
Texas had no standing.
You never answered the question. Which lawsuit gave an evidentiary hearing to the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT i.e., reviewed evidence and listened to sworn witnesses?

In regard to standing, that is addressed in the op.

JWK
You don't get witnesses when you have no standing to sue. Does this really need explained to you?
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,379
Reaction score
708
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.
Every single lawsuit was tossed. Every single one.
And which lawsuit gave an evidentiary hearing to the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT i.e., reviewed evidence and listened to sworn witnesses?

JWK
Texas had no standing.
You never answered the question. Which lawsuit gave an evidentiary hearing to the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT i.e., reviewed evidence and listened to sworn witnesses?

In regard to standing, that is addressed in the op.

JWK
You don't get witnesses when you have no standing to sue. Does this really need explained to you?
What needs to be explained is the assertion used to claim Texas hand no standing. The assertion by the Supreme Court is "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections." But that assertion has been refuted in the OP.
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).
JWK
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
26,771
Reaction score
6,348
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.
And which lawsuit gave an evidentiary hearing to the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT i.e., reviewed evidence and listened to sworn witnesses?

JWK
Texas had no standing.
You never answered the question. Which lawsuit gave an evidentiary hearing to the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT i.e., reviewed evidence and listened to sworn witnesses?

In regard to standing, that is addressed in the op.

JWK
You don't get witnesses when you have no standing to sue. Does this really need explained to you?
What needs to be explained is the assertion used to claim Texas hand no standing. The assertion by the Supreme Court is "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections." But that assertion has been refuted in the OP.
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).
JWK
No it hasn't been. I can refute that Tampa Bay won tonight but it's meaningless.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,379
Reaction score
708
Points
130
No it hasn't been. I can refute that Tampa Bay won tonight but it's meaningless.
It most certainly has been refuted in the OP. And your failure to explain why corruption ___ as described in a federal election, and in the States mentioned in the Texas Bill of Complaint ___ is not a judicially cognizable question, is quite revealing. Just as is the Supreme Court's failure to explain this, is likewise quite revealing, especially when the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction and the State of Texas, 17 other States, and 76 million people have nowhere to go to find this answer and to satisfy a redress of grievances as put forth in the Texas Bill of Complaint.

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.
 

Asclepias

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
108,962
Reaction score
14,667
Points
2,195
Location
Breathing rarified air.
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.
Youre the dumb one. PA and Texas are 2 totally different states you idiot.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
26,771
Reaction score
6,348
Points
215
No it hasn't been. I can refute that Tampa Bay won tonight but it's meaningless.
It most certainly has been refuted in the OP. And your failure to explain why corruption ___ as described in a federal election, and in the States mentioned in the Texas Bill of Complaint ___ is not a judicially cognizable question, is quite revealing. Just as is the Supreme Court's failure to explain this, is likewise quite revealing, especially when the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction and the State of Texas, 17 other States, and 76 million people have nowhere to go to find this answer and to satisfy a redress of grievances as put forth in the Texas Bill of Complaint.

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.
There was no corruption.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,379
Reaction score
708
Points
130
No it hasn't been. I can refute that Tampa Bay won tonight but it's meaningless.
It most certainly has been refuted in the OP. And your failure to explain why corruption ___ as described in a federal election, and in the States mentioned in the Texas Bill of Complaint ___ is not a judicially cognizable question, is quite revealing. Just as is the Supreme Court's failure to explain this, is likewise quite revealing, especially when the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction and the State of Texas, 17 other States, and 76 million people have nowhere to go to find this answer and to satisfy a redress of grievances as put forth in the Texas Bill of Complaint.

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.
There was no corruption.
So, once again you fail to explain why corruption ___ as described in a federal election, and in the States mentioned in the Texas Bill of Complaint ___ is not a judicially cognizable question.

You apparently have ignored the Texas Bill of Complaint which lays out the various forms of corruption and illegal vote activities in the defendant states.

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.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
26,771
Reaction score
6,348
Points
215
No it hasn't been. I can refute that Tampa Bay won tonight but it's meaningless.
It most certainly has been refuted in the OP. And your failure to explain why corruption ___ as described in a federal election, and in the States mentioned in the Texas Bill of Complaint ___ is not a judicially cognizable question, is quite revealing. Just as is the Supreme Court's failure to explain this, is likewise quite revealing, especially when the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction and the State of Texas, 17 other States, and 76 million people have nowhere to go to find this answer and to satisfy a redress of grievances as put forth in the Texas Bill of Complaint.

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.
There was no corruption.
So, once again you fail to explain why corruption ___ as described in a federal election, and in the States mentioned in the Texas Bill of Complaint ___ is not a judicially cognizable question.

You apparently have ignored the Texas Bill of Complaint which lays out the various forms of corruption and illegal vote activities in the defendant states.

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.
How in the world did Tampa Bay lose to New Orleans?
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
29,100
Reaction score
13,338
Points
1,100
Location
Tejas
See: Understanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas’ election suit

View attachment 444335

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.
It's still a question of standing.

I believe that, under the circumstances, all states (including Texas) have a justiciable interest in whether other states within the Union conduction their presidential elections pursuant to the constitution.

The Court disagreed, and had reasonable grounds for doing so. Both positions are reasonable. The Court had to decide.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,379
Reaction score
708
Points
130
No it hasn't been. I can refute that Tampa Bay won tonight but it's meaningless.
It most certainly has been refuted in the OP. And your failure to explain why corruption ___ as described in a federal election, and in the States mentioned in the Texas Bill of Complaint ___ is not a judicially cognizable question, is quite revealing. Just as is the Supreme Court's failure to explain this, is likewise quite revealing, especially when the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction and the State of Texas, 17 other States, and 76 million people have nowhere to go to find this answer and to satisfy a redress of grievances as put forth in the Texas Bill of Complaint.

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.
There was no corruption.
So, once again you fail to explain why corruption ___ as described in a federal election, and in the States mentioned in the Texas Bill of Complaint ___ is not a judicially cognizable question.

You apparently have ignored the Texas Bill of Complaint which lays out the various forms of corruption and illegal vote activities in the defendant states.

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.
How in the world did Tampa Bay lose to New Orleans?
Freaken troll !

:ahole-1:


:rolleyes:

JWK

Today’s Fifth Column media ___ MSNBC, NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, WASHINGTON POST, ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, New York Daily News, Time, in addition to Facebook, Twitter ETC., and countless Yellow Journalists who are socialist revolutionaries ___ make Russia’s old Pravda, [an organ of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union] look like propaganda amateurs.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
26,771
Reaction score
6,348
Points
215
No it hasn't been. I can refute that Tampa Bay won tonight but it's meaningless.
It most certainly has been refuted in the OP. And your failure to explain why corruption ___ as described in a federal election, and in the States mentioned in the Texas Bill of Complaint ___ is not a judicially cognizable question, is quite revealing. Just as is the Supreme Court's failure to explain this, is likewise quite revealing, especially when the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction and the State of Texas, 17 other States, and 76 million people have nowhere to go to find this answer and to satisfy a redress of grievances as put forth in the Texas Bill of Complaint.

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.
There was no corruption.
So, once again you fail to explain why corruption ___ as described in a federal election, and in the States mentioned in the Texas Bill of Complaint ___ is not a judicially cognizable question.

You apparently have ignored the Texas Bill of Complaint which lays out the various forms of corruption and illegal vote activities in the defendant states.

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.
How in the world did Tampa Bay lose to New Orleans?
Freaken troll !

:ahole-1:


:rolleyes:

JWK

Today’s Fifth Column media ___ MSNBC, NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, WASHINGTON POST, ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, New York Daily News, Time, in addition to Facebook, Twitter ETC., and countless Yellow Journalists who are socialist revolutionaries ___ make Russia’s old Pravda, [an organ of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union] look like propaganda amateurs.
Are you going to answer the question or not?
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,379
Reaction score
708
Points
130
It's still a question of standing.

I believe that, under the circumstances, all states (including Texas) have a justiciable interest in whether other states within the Union conduction their presidential elections pursuant to the constitution.

The Court disagreed, and had reasonable grounds for doing so. Both positions are reasonable. The Court had to decide.
Actually, it appears exceptionably suspicious, at least to reasonable and thinking people, if the Supreme Court had rational grounds for refusing to hear the Texas Lawsuit, supported by 17 other States, and perhaps 76 million American Citizens, it would have explained its reasoning for issuing the following order:

ORDER IN PENDING CASE 155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. "The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:

In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue."


The assertion that Texas had not demonstrated a "judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections", when the charges set forth in the Texas brief and complaint summarize and detail both illegal and fraudulent election practices in not one, but in four States ___ practices which undeniably violate our federal Constitution and have corrupted the outcome of a federal election ___ most certainly do demonstrate a judicially cognizable interest, not only for the State of Texas, but for the entire United States, her citizens, and their very democratic system of government.

As succinctly stated by a noteworthy Justice of our Supreme Court eighty years ago, 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).

The contention that the Court had "reasonable grounds" to assert Texas had not demonstrated a "judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections" holds true had the election been of local concern, and not a federal electoral event. Of course, the Court has yet to explain the "reasonable grounds" you suggest exists.

Unfortunately, it seems plain as day that our Supreme Court members not only engaged in nonfeasance, but also spat upon our Constitution, 18 States and 76 million people, when they refused to entertain a redress of grievances, give an evidentiary hearing to the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT, listen to sworn witnesses and evaluate evidence, in a case of grave and national importance, and a case only they have original jurisdiction over.

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.
 
Last edited:

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top