S.C., in rejecting Texas lawsuit, perpetuates a “depravation of rights under color of law”

[Skylar]

All have been laughed out of court for being stupid.

That is what you have.

You must thing Trump briefs are like your moronic posts.

As always, you are very wrong again.

Oh, Trump's legal arguments have been a spectacular failure. Judge Matthew Brann had this to say:

One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.


And the circuit courts didn't have much use for Trump's legal arguments either:

Nor does the Campaign deserve an injunction to undo Pennsylvania’s certification of its votes. The Campaign’s claims have no merit. The number of ballots it specifically challenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. And it never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters. Plus, tossing out millions of mail-in ballots would be drastic and unprecedented, disenfranchising a huge swath of the electorate and upsetting all down-ballot races too. That remedy would be grossly disproportionate to the procedural challenges raised. So we deny the motion for an injunction pending appeal.

And the Supreme Court tossed Trump's 'big one' out on its ass.

There's a reason too......the legal arguments were inept shit that would only convince sycophants and rubes.

 

[Skylar]

All have been laughed out of court for being stupid.

That is what you have.

You must thing Trump briefs are like your moronic posts.

As always, you are very wrong again.

1 for 65 is not a winning record trump dead-end sycophant.

And the '1' was that Republican poll watchers could stand 3 feet closer to the poll workers.

 

[johnwk]

Please note, this thread is intended to open a discussion about an issue of law, a depravation of rights under color of law, as applied to the 2020 election.


On Friday, December 11, 2020, seven members on our Supreme Court engaged in and perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law” by refusing to hear a complaint filed by Texas which was joined in by seventeen other States, asserting Defendant States engaged in violations of state election law which ultimately resulted in millions of legally cast ballots being cancelled out by millions of illegally cast ballots, ending in an illegitimate election and that Joe Biden won the election nationwide.


In perpetuating, and actually engaging in, a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court issued the following ORDER which defies actual, and well established law.


FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020
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. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

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.

CERTIORARI GRANTED

20-222 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, ET AL. V. AR TEACHER RETIREMENT, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.


To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have “original jurisdiction” over “Controversies between two or more States”.


Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.


In regard to “suffering an actual injury”, Texas, along with seventeen other States, meet this requirement by their stated allegations found in a BILL OF COMPLAINT


The irrefutable fact is, if the Petitioner’s allegations are correct and go unheard by the Supreme Court, then the majority on the Court have not only perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law”, but they have actually participated in this depravation of rights by not hearing the case.


In regard to the Plaintiff States not having a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections”, that certainly is true when electing a dog catcher or local board member, etc. But when the election involves the next President of the United States, rational thought concludes every citizen in the United States, as well as every State as a political body, most certainly has a minimum interest that all state election laws designed to produce a legitimate election results are followed, and not abridged in a manner producing an illegitimate result which obviously has occurred in this election.


Finally, if Plaintiffs allegations can be proven, can the Supreme Court resolve the matter? If the Plaintiff’s accusations are correct and provable, which would make countless voters in Defendant States willing accomplices along with their elected officials in a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court, as a remedy, could disallow the tabulation of election results of Defendant States as applied to the 2020 federal election. I’m sure there are various other remedies our Supreme Court could devise to right the wrong created by the Defendant States. But, for our Supreme Court to not do so, and issue an order which defies logical and legal thinking, is to embrace and perpetuate a depravation of rights under color of law.


JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

The lawsuit was ass and was crapped out.

I have no idea what you are referring to. But I get the impression you are fine with the kind of elections which take place in Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, and other socialist/communist countries.

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.

 

[otto105]

Please note, this thread is intended to open a discussion about an issue of law, a depravation of rights under color of law, as applied to the 2020 election.


On Friday, December 11, 2020, seven members on our Supreme Court engaged in and perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law” by refusing to hear a complaint filed by Texas which was joined in by seventeen other States, asserting Defendant States engaged in violations of state election law which ultimately resulted in millions of legally cast ballots being cancelled out by millions of illegally cast ballots, ending in an illegitimate election and that Joe Biden won the election nationwide.


In perpetuating, and actually engaging in, a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court issued the following ORDER which defies actual, and well established law.


FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020
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. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

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.

CERTIORARI GRANTED

20-222 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, ET AL. V. AR TEACHER RETIREMENT, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.


To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have “original jurisdiction” over “Controversies between two or more States”.


Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.


In regard to “suffering an actual injury”, Texas, along with seventeen other States, meet this requirement by their stated allegations found in a BILL OF COMPLAINT


The irrefutable fact is, if the Petitioner’s allegations are correct and go unheard by the Supreme Court, then the majority on the Court have not only perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law”, but they have actually participated in this depravation of rights by not hearing the case.


In regard to the Plaintiff States not having a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections”, that certainly is true when electing a dog catcher or local board member, etc. But when the election involves the next President of the United States, rational thought concludes every citizen in the United States, as well as every State as a political body, most certainly has a minimum interest that all state election laws designed to produce a legitimate election results are followed, and not abridged in a manner producing an illegitimate result which obviously has occurred in this election.


Finally, if Plaintiffs allegations can be proven, can the Supreme Court resolve the matter? If the Plaintiff’s accusations are correct and provable, which would make countless voters in Defendant States willing accomplices along with their elected officials in a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court, as a remedy, could disallow the tabulation of election results of Defendant States as applied to the 2020 federal election. I’m sure there are various other remedies our Supreme Court could devise to right the wrong created by the Defendant States. But, for our Supreme Court to not do so, and issue an order which defies logical and legal thinking, is to embrace and perpetuate a depravation of rights under color of law.


JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

The lawsuit was ass and was crapped out.

I have no idea what you are referring to. But I get the impression you are fine with the kind of elections which take place in Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, and other socialist/communist countries.

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.

I'm in favor of the election we just had. Very few problems and high turn out.

You're the guy who wants just an outcome which favors your side. You would have no problem with doing whatever to secure an election for that propose.

 

[johnwk]

Please note, this thread is intended to open a discussion about an issue of law, a depravation of rights under color of law, as applied to the 2020 election.


On Friday, December 11, 2020, seven members on our Supreme Court engaged in and perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law” by refusing to hear a complaint filed by Texas which was joined in by seventeen other States, asserting Defendant States engaged in violations of state election law which ultimately resulted in millions of legally cast ballots being cancelled out by millions of illegally cast ballots, ending in an illegitimate election and that Joe Biden won the election nationwide.


In perpetuating, and actually engaging in, a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court issued the following ORDER which defies actual, and well established law.


FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020
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. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

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.

CERTIORARI GRANTED

20-222 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, ET AL. V. AR TEACHER RETIREMENT, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.


To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have “original jurisdiction” over “Controversies between two or more States”.


Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.


In regard to “suffering an actual injury”, Texas, along with seventeen other States, meet this requirement by their stated allegations found in a BILL OF COMPLAINT


The irrefutable fact is, if the Petitioner’s allegations are correct and go unheard by the Supreme Court, then the majority on the Court have not only perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law”, but they have actually participated in this depravation of rights by not hearing the case.


In regard to the Plaintiff States not having a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections”, that certainly is true when electing a dog catcher or local board member, etc. But when the election involves the next President of the United States, rational thought concludes every citizen in the United States, as well as every State as a political body, most certainly has a minimum interest that all state election laws designed to produce a legitimate election results are followed, and not abridged in a manner producing an illegitimate result which obviously has occurred in this election.


Finally, if Plaintiffs allegations can be proven, can the Supreme Court resolve the matter? If the Plaintiff’s accusations are correct and provable, which would make countless voters in Defendant States willing accomplices along with their elected officials in a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court, as a remedy, could disallow the tabulation of election results of Defendant States as applied to the 2020 federal election. I’m sure there are various other remedies our Supreme Court could devise to right the wrong created by the Defendant States. But, for our Supreme Court to not do so, and issue an order which defies logical and legal thinking, is to embrace and perpetuate a depravation of rights under color of law.


JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

The lawsuit was ass and was crapped out.

I have no idea what you are referring to. But I get the impression you are fine with the kind of elections which take place in Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, and other socialist/communist countries.

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.

I'm in favor of the election we just had. Very few problems and high turn out.

You're the guy who wants just an outcome which favors your side. You would have no problem with doing whatever to secure an election for that propose.

Your accusation is without foundation. And with reference to "very few problems", Pennsylvania's unconstitutional no-excuse mail in voting invited massive vote fraud, the kind of fraud you find in Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, and other socialist/communist countries. Do you agree?

JWK

Our government, once of the people, by the people and for the people, has been transformed into a government of politicians, by politicians and for politicians . . . witness the latest influence peddling fortune being made by the Biden criminal enterprise.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Please note, this thread is intended to open a discussion about an issue of law, a depravation of rights under color of law, as applied to the 2020 election.


On Friday, December 11, 2020, seven members on our Supreme Court engaged in and perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law” by refusing to hear a complaint filed by Texas which was joined in by seventeen other States, asserting Defendant States engaged in violations of state election law which ultimately resulted in millions of legally cast ballots being cancelled out by millions of illegally cast ballots, ending in an illegitimate election and that Joe Biden won the election nationwide.


In perpetuating, and actually engaging in, a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court issued the following ORDER which defies actual, and well established law.


FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020
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. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

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.

CERTIORARI GRANTED

20-222 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, ET AL. V. AR TEACHER RETIREMENT, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.


To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have “original jurisdiction” over “Controversies between two or more States”.


Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.


In regard to “suffering an actual injury”, Texas, along with seventeen other States, meet this requirement by their stated allegations found in a BILL OF COMPLAINT


The irrefutable fact is, if the Petitioner’s allegations are correct and go unheard by the Supreme Court, then the majority on the Court have not only perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law”, but they have actually participated in this depravation of rights by not hearing the case.


In regard to the Plaintiff States not having a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections”, that certainly is true when electing a dog catcher or local board member, etc. But when the election involves the next President of the United States, rational thought concludes every citizen in the United States, as well as every State as a political body, most certainly has a minimum interest that all state election laws designed to produce a legitimate election results are followed, and not abridged in a manner producing an illegitimate result which obviously has occurred in this election.


Finally, if Plaintiffs allegations can be proven, can the Supreme Court resolve the matter? If the Plaintiff’s accusations are correct and provable, which would make countless voters in Defendant States willing accomplices along with their elected officials in a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court, as a remedy, could disallow the tabulation of election results of Defendant States as applied to the 2020 federal election. I’m sure there are various other remedies our Supreme Court could devise to right the wrong created by the Defendant States. But, for our Supreme Court to not do so, and issue an order which defies logical and legal thinking, is to embrace and perpetuate a depravation of rights under color of law.


JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

I don't think 'irrefutable' or 'fact' mean what you think it means. What you're offering is your personal opinion.

And the vote was 9-0 that the petition was unworthy of any remedy.

Speaking of personal opinion . . .

In actual fact, the vote was 7-2. Thomas and Alito both dissented. And as much as I know you'd like to believe the Supreme Court validated your political beliefs, what they actually ruled when they dismissed the case was that Texas didn't have standing to bring the suit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, it appears Skylar has no rebuttal!

Is this your first time meeting Skylar? He never has a rebuttal, aside from, "I'm so right and moral about everything, and obviously everyone agrees with that."