- Dec 23, 2009
- Reaction score
- Middle class, suburban ghetto.
Texas and every other state in the union has standing in the matter because the violations impact them and not just the individual states implicated. The refusal to consider the case was a result of shakedown, the fear of more democrat violence.That is not what the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania said about the law.But per the federal constitution, those voting laws must be legislated. PA did not do that. That would nullify all non-excused mail-in votes as illegal. Roberts stayed out of that when it was challenged months before the election. He obviously feared the threat of left wing violence.One state doesn't provide another state with voting rights. Each state may decide the laws on voting in each state.Pennsylvania abridged the voting rights of citizens in other States and our Supreme Court ignored enforcing the rule of law!The federal govt. is not able to do anything concerning the election of a president that is all done by the state according to the Constitution. So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over. Only the states can make the rules for election of a president in their own state, they can't change how another state votes because there is no such law governing the ability to do as such.
Let us look at the facts.
Electors are chosen by a popular vote of the people.
If a state’s employees, e.g., in Pennsylvania, violate the State’s Constitution and corrupt the electoral process by introducing a million illegal ballots in a federal electoral process with the intention of favoring a particular candidate, not only has that State’s voters’ right to vote been abridged, but the illegal activity has corrupted the federal electoral process for voters across the nation who have cast ballots in accordance with the rule of law
Elevating a particular candidate in one state by illegal methods is most certainly an abridgement of the right to vote of people in others states whose legal votes are rendered meaningless, and diminished by the amount of illegal ballots counted in another state.
As succinctly stated by Justice Douglas 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)".
When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens.
The US Supreme Court refused to hear the case on the grounds that the issue was that Texas has no standing in the matter.
U.S. Supreme Court throws out Texas lawsuit contesting 2020 election results in four battleground states
The lawsuit challenged election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The high court said Texas did not have standing to bring the case.
In a few brief sentences, the high court said it would not consider the case for procedural reasons, because Texas lacked standing to bring it.
"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections," the court wrote in an unsigned ruling Friday evening.
U.S. Supreme Court throws out Texas lawsuit contesting 2020 election results in four battleground statesThe lawsuit challenged election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The high court said Texas did not have standing to bring the case.www.texastribune.org