Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yeah. That's exactly what I said.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.
Yeah. That's exactly what I said.
I disagree, but being honest, I can't say that the decision is so wrong that something suspicious is afoot.
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.
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.
Yeah. That's exactly what I said.
I disagree, but being honest, I can't say that the decision is so wrong that something suspicious is afoot.
Well then, unlike the Court failing to explain their reasoning which concluded Texas had not demonstrated a "judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections", perhaps you can shed some light on, and your reasoning as to why the decision is not glaringly wrong. I certainly did not hesitate to explain my reasoning for condemning the Court's Order. I wrote:
"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)".
JWK
When it comes to healthcare, our communist/socialist democrat revolutionary leaders have no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the healthcare needs of millions of foreign nationals who have invaded America’s borders.
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.
But Trump says otherwiseYeah. That's exactly what I said.
I disagree, but being honest, I can't say that the decision is so wrong that something suspicious is afoot.
Well then, unlike the Court failing to explain their reasoning which concluded Texas had not demonstrated a "judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections", perhaps you can shed some light on, and your reasoning as to why the decision is not glaringly wrong. I certainly did not hesitate to explain my reasoning for condemning the Court's Order. I wrote:
"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)".
JWK
When it comes to healthcare, our communist/socialist democrat revolutionary leaders have no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the healthcare needs of millions of foreign nationals who have invaded America’s borders.
The federal courts found no evidence that any fraud occurred in any state. End of your argument.
States also have the right to set the rules of their electionTexas 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.
The federal courts also recognize that state courts have the right to interpret the constitution of that state. The Supreme Court never took up the case in Pennsylvania so they did not make any ruling.
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.
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.
Not playing dumb. He's just fucking stupid.Yeah, I knew you would play dumb.
The Texas lawsuit is over the PA Supreme Court ruling. Duh.
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.
You are so much bullshit.
The Supreme Court was right to not interfere. No court found any evidence of fraud. If anyone was denied the right to vote, it was actions taken by Trump. His attempt to slow down the postal service probably resulted in some votes not arriving on time. Then Trump attempted to throw out the votes of people who voted.
There is no evidence any illegal votes were cast or any corruption.
In a presidential election every state has reason to see to it that five or six crucial swing statesYeah, you are either completely ignorant of the PA Supreme Court ruling, which interfered with the PA Legislatures' plenary power over the electors.
The federal courts found no evidence that any fraud occurred in any state. End of your argument.
Ironic as you're throwing outAll that says is that the case should have been heard. They did not suggest vthey would graqnt any relief. What that says is at least 7 of the justices would not support this ridiculous case. You are the one who is spitting on the Constitution. You want to throw out the votes of millions of people.
You presumption is no evidence was presented. You have no proof at all of what you claim.You had ample opportunity to present evidence and you could not provide any evidence. The Supreme Court is not a evidentiary court. They resolve constitutional issues.
State legislators determine state election laws. Not anyone else.States also have the right to set the rules of their election
Even if Texas thinks otherwise
Lord John Roberts dismissed the Texas suit on the basis of complete bullshit (the Supreme Court is not the proper venue for one state to sue other states? Ridiculous! That's precisely the place where such cases are resolved). Roberts is a liar and not even a good one. Bush sure knew what he was doing when he put this globalist watch dog on the court.
Roberts knew better than to even consider the case...the die was cast for over sixty law suits brought by Trump. NOT A SINGLE ONE was taken up by any court on the merits of the case. Crooks in robes covered up democrat crimes.
I'm sure he has rationalized his life and work in his own mind where somehow he can justify it all.I wonder how he faces his wife and children, knowing he is doing the dirty work for some notoriously evil actors.
JWK
