Texas Files Lawsuit at SCOTUS Against GA, PA, MI, and WI

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to back your claim that one state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.

What I said is not in doubt. So I don't need to back my claim.

If its 'not in doubt', then it will be remarkably easy for you to factually establish.

If you're merely making up pseudo-legal gibberish backed by nothing, you'll keep giving us excuses why you can't.

Choose.

suits-between-two-or-more-states

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Mac-7]

It’s obvious that this is desperation on part of Trump supporters.

Stuffing the ballot boxes was an act of desperation by the democrats

 

[Skylar]

It being on the docket means there's most likely a hearing.

It doesn’t mean the court has taken up the case. No devisions have been made.

You and I may be talking past each other. When I say 'hearing', I mean that the justices meet to discuss the case. That's it.

Not that the court has agreed to hear the case, not that they have granted writ, not that they have recognized standing, or that the case has any legal merit.

Merely, that the justices are going to talk about the case. And discussing a case doesn't mean they will grant the writ.

This was demonstrated elegantly today with Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v. Pennsylvania, et al.. Certiorari was denied. However, this same case appeared on the justices docket on December 3rd:

And yet it was denied cert. Demonstrating that a hearing alone doesn't amount to much.

 

[Skylar]

It’s obvious that this is desperation on part of Trump supporters.

Stuffing the ballot boxes was an act of desperation by the democrats

Or......imagining a 'stolen election' is an act of desperation by you.

 

[Mac-7]

No, it isn't. The Supreme can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.

Right .... the Supreme Court will just ignore this all like it never happened.

Jesus he's thick. LOL

It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.

I kinda feel for them, because they're going to be pilloried no matter which way they go.

On the other hand, they knew the risks of the job when they decided to pursue it.

Its a long shot

dems have four votes counting roberts and only need to flip one conservative judge

 

[Skylar]

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to back your claim that one state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.

What I said is not in doubt. So I don't need to back my claim.

If its 'not in doubt', then it will be remarkably easy for you to factually establish.

If you're merely making up pseudo-legal gibberish backed by nothing, you'll keep giving us excuses why you can't.

Choose.

suits-between-two-or-more-states

www.law.cornell.edu

Did you even read what you linked to?

Where does it say that one state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court?

Just cut and paste relevant passage.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[Dr Grump]

Actually, the Texas suit does say that, but you wouldn't know, since you've been pulling ASSumptions about what their suit out of your anus from the start.

I'm going to do you a favor and actually show you how ignorant you're being . . . and do everyone else a favor by showing them it's actually stupidity, since you won't read this any more than you read the OP article.

The US Constitution - you may have heard of it; that's the document your thought masters keep telling you is toilet paper - states very clearly that election law must be passed by the state legislators. It cannot be decided or changed by anyone else. Not the governor, not the Secretary of State, not the election boards, and not the state Supreme Court.

States such as Pennsylvania had their election laws changed by people who weren't the state legislature.

Here is the contention of the state of Texas:

This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.

Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards. For presidential elections, each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution,” Paxton said in a statement. “The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution.

Which answers the questions of both standing and harm.

And now you know that every "point" you've made based on what you ASSumed was happening was so much flatulence.

You're welcome.

Almost as dumb as your post I reckon. Cecille proves again she is not only dumb as a post, but one wonders where she gets her arrogance from. I've seen 1000 year old mummies showing more signs of intelligence.

Legal experts label latest US election case the ‘dumbest’ they’ve ever seen

Legal experts have shredded an audacious new lawsuit challenging the results of America’s presidential election in four swing states, calling it the “craziest” and “dumbest” case of the entire post-election period.

www.news.com.au

Snip:
Legal experts have shredded an audacious new lawsuit challenging the results of America’s presidential election in four swing states, calling it the “craziest” and “dumbest” case of the entire post-election period.
Ultimately, he wants the Supreme Court to order that each state ignore its popular vote and choose its electors via the state legislature instead.
Incidentally, all four state legislatures are controlled by the Republican Party.

He noted that Texas’s Solictor General Kyle Hawkins, whose job it is to supervise and conduct the state’s litigation in the Supreme Court, had not put his name on the lawsuit, surmising that Mr Hawkins “surely would not sign this garbage”.

“Calling this garbage might be generous,” he said.

Eugene Mazo from the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law told Law & Crime Mr Paxton’s lawsuit was the “craziest case” of the post-election period.
“This is the dumbest case any lawyer has ever seen, and the Supreme Court won’t touch it. Really, this is the craziest case of them all. Unbelievable,” Prof Mazo said.
“It’s just unbelievable to any sane, normal person who understands the structure of our constitutional system and how it functions.”

 

[iceberg]

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[otto105]

Is that supposed to mean anything outside of the wingnut noise machine.

Not to a moderately functioning retarded man like you. Just ignore my post.
Diane Feinstein employed a Chinese spy for twenty years...nothing to see there.

You should just stay in your bubble.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.

Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
way to victory. The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.

And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
slitting their own wrists.

I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it. I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point. I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case. I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

 

[Skylar]

Actually, the Texas suit does say that, but you wouldn't know, since you've been pulling ASSumptions about what their suit out of your anus from the start.

I'm going to do you a favor and actually show you how ignorant you're being . . . and do everyone else a favor by showing them it's actually stupidity, since you won't read this any more than you read the OP article.

The US Constitution - you may have heard of it; that's the document your thought masters keep telling you is toilet paper - states very clearly that election law must be passed by the state legislators. It cannot be decided or changed by anyone else. Not the governor, not the Secretary of State, not the election boards, and not the state Supreme Court.

States such as Pennsylvania had their election laws changed by people who weren't the state legislature.

Here is the contention of the state of Texas:

This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.

Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards. For presidential elections, each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution,” Paxton said in a statement. “The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution.

Which answers the questions of both standing and harm.

And now you know that every "point" you've made based on what you ASSumed was happening was so much flatulence.

You're welcome.

Almost as dumb as your post I reckon. Cecille proves again she is not only dumb as a post, but one wonders where she gets her arrogance from. I've seen 1000 year old mummies showing more signs of intelligence.

Legal experts label latest US election case the ‘dumbest’ they’ve ever seen

Legal experts have shredded an audacious new lawsuit challenging the results of America’s presidential election in four swing states, calling it the “craziest” and “dumbest” case of the entire post-election period.

www.news.com.au

Snip:
Legal experts have shredded an audacious new lawsuit challenging the results of America’s presidential election in four swing states, calling it the “craziest” and “dumbest” case of the entire post-election period.
Ultimately, he wants the Supreme Court to order that each state ignore its popular vote and choose its electors via the state legislature instead.
Incidentally, all four state legislatures are controlled by the Republican Party.

He noted that Texas’s Solictor General Kyle Hawkins, whose job it is to supervise and conduct the state’s litigation in the Supreme Court, had not put his name on the lawsuit, surmising that Mr Hawkins “surely would not sign this garbage”.

“Calling this garbage might be generous,” he said.

Eugene Mazo from the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law told Law & Crime Mr Paxton’s lawsuit was the “craziest case” of the post-election period.
“This is the dumbest case any lawyer has ever seen, and the Supreme Court won’t touch it. Really, this is the craziest case of them all. Unbelievable,” Prof Mazo said.
“It’s just unbelievable to any sane, normal person who understands the structure of our constitutional system and how it functions.”

Personally, I think the Texas AG is angling for a pre-emptive pardon

 

[Cecilie1200]

Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!

Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules

Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.

www.breitbart.com

Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:​

​

Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.​

…​

This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.​

​

Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.​

Just one more example of traitorous Republicans trying to overturn an election and install their candidate.

Wow, a moral condemnation from the poster girl for the party of election fraud and disenfranchisement. You'll excuse me if I don't cry myself to sleep at night for not having the good opinion of someone I wouldn't piss on if she were on fire.

 

[iceberg]

It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.

Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
way to victory. The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.

And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
slitting their own wrists.

I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it. I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point. I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case. I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

with LA joining in on the Texas lawsuit, you'll likely see more states join in also.

i felt as the left said NO MAIL IN - JUST SEND BALLOTS IT'S SECURE it was going around process and procedure.

guess we'll find out.

 

[AceRothstein]

One state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.

Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going on

LOL, you guys have been claiming every new court case is going to be "the one" for a month now. A month later Trump and his allies have lost 50 cases. This will just be another loss.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.

Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
way to victory. The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.

And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws.

I agree with all of that.
I'm not sure what remedy will solve the issue though

Most likely it will be some version of yes the Democrats committed massive fraud, but we see no political remedy to repair that.
the court will find that Biden is illegitimate - but he will still be seated.
Some people will be found guilty of criminal charges - some of civil charges.

Mostly low level players.

The remedy Texas is asking for is for those state legislatures to choose the electors, I believe. Not sure if the Supreme Court can do that, or if they'll be willing to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We cannot not allowing cheating democrats to ignore the Constitution

Biden cannot and will not cheat his way to the Presidency

Translation: we don't like the results of the election so we'll claim fraud without evidence and if the courts won't give us our way, we'll try and get the Republican state legislatures to install our candidate.

Yeah, we should quietly accept the results of the election the way you leftists accepted the results in 2016.

 

[Skylar]

It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.

Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
way to victory. The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.

And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
slitting their own wrists.

I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it. I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point. I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case. I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes loyalty to Trump or the Republican party by any justice.....rather than loyalty to the law and the Constitution.

As the court rejecting Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v Pennsylvania, et al. just this morning elegantly demonstrated, you're likely going to be very disappointed.

 

[Dogbiscuit]

Louisiana has jumped on the Texas lawsuit.

getting fun now, people.

I heard this earlier, but cant find any articles.

 

[otto105]

It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.

Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
way to victory. The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.

And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
slitting their own wrists.

I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it. I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point. I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case. I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

Wrong, and stupid.


Move on loser.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.

Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
way to victory. The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.

And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
slitting their own wrists.

I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it. I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point. I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case. I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

with LA joining in on the Texas lawsuit, you'll likely see more states join in also.

i felt as the left said NO MAIL IN - JUST SEND BALLOTS IT'S SECURE it was going around process and procedure.

guess we'll find out.

I'll be curious to see which states, if any, decide to join Texas.

And have I mentioned . . . God bless Texas?