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

[JimBowie1958]

let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? if no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.

It is so adorable how some conservatives talk to libtards like they actually give a flying shit about honesty, integrity or fair elections.

just adorable!

 

[JLW]

This lawsuit brought by the corrupt Texas AG is a farce. It is an embarrassment to the legal system of the United States of America. The Supreme Court will rid themselves of this trash lawsuit faster than Trump runs away from a book.

These states broke their own laws.

Are denying the states did not follow their constitutional process?

Lol...the states did not violate their “own laws.” The corrupt Texas AG’s lawsuit is a rehash of all the prior cases that have been laughed out of court. The tragedy and farce is that they are so many lemmings in other starters that followed corrupt Texas AG off the cliff.

Law states changing the election process requires going through the legislature.

Please show me where these 4 states did that.

All you gotta do.

Please show me a single case that Trump won on that argument.

All you gotta do.

Trump has nothing to do with it, deflection Dan.

Now show me where these states followed their process.

You can't, can you?

Huh???? Lawsuits were brought on this issue and Trump lost.

Ahiw me one case where Trump won.

You can’t, can you?

This is the Texas lawsuit. Keep up.

The Texas lawsuit is trash. It will dismissed out of hand.

And again you refuse to say whether or not the states did what they are accused of.

It's not hard.

Show me 2here these states followed their own constitution.

But you can't and won't. Just bitch.

Aka... TROLL.

Show me one state that lost a law suit that they did not follow their constitution?

You’re the one making the assertion. Prove it.

 

[NoNukes]

let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? if no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.

It is so adorable how some conservatives talk to libtards like they actually give a flying shit about honesty, integrity or fair elections.

just adorable!

Hey, we talk to you as if you are not batshit crazy about the election.

 

[iceberg]

let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? if no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.

It is so adorable how some conservatives talk to libtards like they actually give a flying shit about honesty, integrity or fair elections.

just adorable!

hey sir spanks-a-lot; you conduct yourself as you see fit, and i will do the same. stop being "liberal" and telling other people how to do things.

some people are here to TRY and talk issues, not see who has the best insults. besides, when i want to be insulting, i'm pretty much one of the best but i've found that is just an endless ping pong game.

 

[iceberg]

let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.
did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? if no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.
i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.

It is so adorable how some conservatives talk to libtards like they actually give a flying shit about honesty, integrity or fair elections.

just adorable!

Hey, we talk to you as if you are not batshit crazy about the election.

hell man, you may wanna rethink that plan.

 

[colfax_m]

how desperate do you have to be to simply not show that the states followed their own constitution but yet you have to attack the person asking about it instead?

simply show the math of how these states followed their own constitutional process. any failure in that and any resorting to more attacks on others simply asking is your jr high way of saying you know the states did not do this but you still hope you can keep up a brave front and maybe the kid on the front row eating his boogers between your posts still believes you.

It's almost as if there's a system to determine if a state is following their own constitution.

And it has nothing to do with Texas going to SCOTUS.

 

[iceberg]

how desperate do you have to be to simply not show that the states followed their own constitution but yet you have to attack the person asking about it instead?

simply show the math of how these states followed their own constitutional process. any failure in that and any resorting to more attacks on others simply asking is your jr high way of saying you know the states did not do this but you still hope you can keep up a brave front and maybe the kid on the front row eating his boogers between your posts still believes you.

It's almost as if there's a system to determine if a state is following their own constitution.

And it has nothing to do with Texas going to SCOTUS.

and what does this have to do with anything? the Texas lawsuit has been spelled out clearly, with references, sections of the states constitutions violated and how that impacted an outcomes against what their state (and now what, 9 others) voted fairly for.

did these states or did they not follow their own constitutional process to change how people voted in this election?

a YES | NO question doesn't contain this many excuses.

 

[mascale]

One problem the Supreme Court may have is jurisdiction. The regulation of the state elections is up to Congress, not the Supreme Court. From one or another of various opinions. Texas, and the Court, is expressly prohibited from interference in the state elections.
___________________________
At the Founding, the breadth of Congress’ express power to “make or alter” state regulation of federal elections was understood by supporters and detractors alike. The plain text of the Elections Clause, as James Madison explained at the Constitutional Convention, uses “words of great latitude,” recognizing that “it was impossible to foresee all the abuses that might be made of the [states’] discretionary power.” 2 RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 at 240. As Madison explained, “[w]hether the electors should vote by ballot or vivâ voce, should assemble at this place or that place; should be divided into districts or all meet in one place, shd all vote for all the representatives; 9 or all in a district vote for a number allotted to the district; these & many other points would depend on the Legislatures and might materially affect the appointments.” Id. at 240-41; see also 2 DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS at 535 (Pa.) Thus, the Framers’ understanding was that Congress would have final say over questions of balloting, location of polling places, districting, and other of “the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental right involved.” Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 366 (1932). Opponents of the Elections Clause, too, understood that the Clause gave Congress strong powers to regulate federal elections, explaining that their “great difficulty” was that “the power given by the 4th section was unlimited,” 2 DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS at 25 (Mass.), and “admits of the most dangerous latitude.” 3 id. at 175 (Va.); see also 4 id. at 55 (“[T]hey are words of very great extent. This clause provides that a Congress may at any time alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators.”) (N.C.). In the ensuing debates over ratification of the Constitution, the Elections Clause was vigorously challenged. . . .

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Think of Moses learning Egyptian skills and arts, per Acts 7, as a kid growing up. Arithmetic and subjugations skills were likely included. So Among the Terrorist Imperial-Intending, "Chosen People:" Of Pharaoh's Egyptian ruling Houses: Deut 23: 19-20--likely an Egyptian, local matter!)

 

[iceberg]

One problem the Supreme Court may have is jurisdiction. The regulation of the state elections is up to Congress, not the Supreme Court. From one or another of various opinions. Texas, and the Court, is expressly prohibited from interference in the state elections.
___________________________
At the Founding, the breadth of Congress’ express power to “make or alter” state regulation of federal elections was understood by supporters and detractors alike. The plain text of the Elections Clause, as James Madison explained at the Constitutional Convention, uses “words of great latitude,” recognizing that “it was impossible to foresee all the abuses that might be made of the [states’] discretionary power.” 2 RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 at 240. As Madison explained, “[w]hether the electors should vote by ballot or vivâ voce, should assemble at this place or that place; should be divided into districts or all meet in one place, shd all vote for all the representatives; 9 or all in a district vote for a number allotted to the district; these & many other points would depend on the Legislatures and might materially affect the appointments.” Id. at 240-41; see also 2 DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS at 535 (Pa.) Thus, the Framers’ understanding was that Congress would have final say over questions of balloting, location of polling places, districting, and other of “the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental right involved.” Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 366 (1932). Opponents of the Elections Clause, too, understood that the Clause gave Congress strong powers to regulate federal elections, explaining that their “great difficulty” was that “the power given by the 4th section was unlimited,” 2 DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS at 25 (Mass.), and “admits of the most dangerous latitude.” 3 id. at 175 (Va.); see also 4 id. at 55 (“[T]hey are words of very great extent. This clause provides that a Congress may at any time alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators.”) (N.C.). In the ensuing debates over ratification of the Constitution, the Elections Clause was vigorously challenged. . . .

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Think of Moses learning Egyptian skills and arts, per Acts 7, as a kid growing up. Arithmetic and subjugations skills were likely included. So Among the Terrorist Imperial-Intending, "Chosen People:" Of Pharaoh's Egyptian ruling Houses: Deut 23: 19-20--likely an Egyptian, local matter!)

so for:

" Congress would have final say over questions of balloting, location of polling places, districting, and other of “the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental right involved.”"

then the states congress would have the final say on whether or not the states voting processes can, should, or will be changed.

great. now; did they in the states listed in the suit? did they make the changes or did OTHER PARTIES force it through?

 

[colfax_m]

and what does this have to do with anything? the Texas lawsuit has been spelled out clearly, with references, sections of the states constitutions violated and how that impacted an outcomes against what their state (and now what, 9 others) voted fairly for.

did these states or did they not follow their own constitutional process to change how people voted in this election?

a YES | NO question doesn't contain this many excuses.

It has everything to do with it. Texas has no grounds to sue these states to force them to do anything. It's completely without merit.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You sound like a duck farting on a frozen pond.

You are the duck farting on a frozen pond.

My God this is original.

Rush back to recess and get your high 5s.

Ah, yes. The old I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I....I'm-rubber-you're-glue response.

 

[iceberg]

You sound like a duck farting on a frozen pond.

You are the duck farting on a frozen pond.

My God this is original.

Rush back to recess and get your high 5s.

Ah, yes. The old I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I....I'm-rubber-you're-glue response.

i am over here trying to get creative and best gumpybear can do is copy my jokes.

pretty sad man.

 

[Mac-7]

One state can not sue another state over how that state runs its elections.

That shows how little you know

 

[RealDave]

This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

They have not. There have been no illegal changes.

Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.

State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.

The US constitution says State legislatures set the rules for Presidential elector selection, and thus the elections. State judges can't override that.

Marty thinks that a Republican legislature can pass a law that said democrats votes don 't get counted.

 

[Pete7469]

It is so adorable how some conservatives talk to libtards like they actually give a flying shit about honesty, integrity or fair elections.

just adorable!

I applaud the efforts.

I do of course see the futility of it when it comes to "changing" whatever sphincter functions as a bed wetter's "mind", because they have no frontal lobe. However I'm sure there are people who do read these posts and actually form opinions based on the information.

I'm just a fuckin troll though, and get my kicks insulting vacuous liberal jabbering retards. I have to add context and facts in relation to the topic just to stay within the rules, but I am aware that the bed wetters do not allow facts to penetrate their deliberate ignorance. They want Trump gone. It matters not to them how that objective is met. It doesn't even matter to these sniveling submissive parasites that Trump was a self proclaimed democrook pretty much until the meat puppet faggot was elected.

 

[colfax_m]

That shows how little you know

It's actually a big problem. Are you aware of this ever happening before?

 

[martybegan]

This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

They have not. There have been no illegal changes.

Judges unilaterally allowed changes not approved by the legislature, and the legislatures at the State level have the power to set election guidelines.

State judges have the right to interpret the state's constitutions. State legislatures do not have the power to ignore the state's constitution. If the Supreme Court wants to interpret state constitutions then they should resign and get judgeships in the state courts.

The US constitution says State legislatures set the rules for Presidential elector selection, and thus the elections. State judges can't override that.

Marty thinks that a Republican legislature can pass a law that said democrats votes don 't get counted.

No, I am saying, and Texas is saying that State Executives and Judiciaries can't change election laws themselves, that the Constitution gives that sole power to the State Legislatures.

 

[iceberg]

It is so adorable how some conservatives talk to libtards like they actually give a flying shit about honesty, integrity or fair elections.

just adorable!

I applaud the efforts.

I do of course see the futility of it when it comes to "changing" whatever sphincter functions as a bed wetter's "mind", because they have no frontal lobe. However I'm sure there are people who do read these posts and actually form opinions based on the information.

I'm just a fuckin troll though, and get my kicks insulting vacuous liberal jabbering retards. I have to add context and facts in relation to the topic just to stay within the rules, but I am aware that the bed wetters do not allow facts to penetrate their deliberate ignorance. They want Trump gone. It matters not to them how that objective is met. It doesn't even matter to these sniveling submissive parasites that Trump was a self proclaimed democrook pretty much until the meat puppet faggot was elected.

well it really comes down to - what do i want out of this forum.

1. insult the other side because they're stupid
2. try and talk current events and issues outside of the personal hate wagons bantered about.

you can't do #2 cause everyone is stuck on #1 and this sounds like a HORRIBLE bathroom experience.

people get so caught up in the 1st option that they *think* others are here for the same reasons. or they just don't care; insult and mock. insult and mock. insult and mock. take a lunch break. insult and mock the rest of the day.

all they know and all they do.

i can't get too upset, i used to do the same thing. if someone *tried* to talk seriously i'd return the favor but i'd not look for it usually; just show how creative i am; esp in my drinking days.

but people don't want honesty these days in as much as emotional validation. i hate this person so all they do is wrong and i will make sure the world knows. trouble is, this is based on opinions people decide to make facts to justify such strong emotions.

when you try to reason with them, they take it as an attack.

so if someone is actually trying to talk issues, i want to dive in and talk issues too. it's pretty much a given anymore roughly half the country will hate the other half but i don't like that state we're in. how do you change that?

insult them cause they're stupid? or have the patience to keep trying to rebuild that middle ground in hopes people tire of hating so much and can find room for something else in their hearts and minds.

i got better things to do than simply lob insults for 30k+ posts. even if those better things are crash on the floor with my dog and watch bar rescue marathons.

people will get tired of the hate on their own terms, i suppose. it certainly won't be when they get what they want cause even if you do, there will be something else to hate next. why? cause that's the dog you're feeding.

i've just chosen to feed my other "dogs".

 

[DrLove]

Well of course - Texas has every right to change election laws in all 57 states because, you know ... TEXAS!
Good lord, when will Republicans stop embarrassing themselves?

Who will make them pay for it?

Their voters?? Nope...

They are embarrassing themselves for their voters....

and when this is said and done, I guarantee you that these folks will get pissed if you ever remind them

Apparently you would prefer the people nationwide to pay for those States' "right" to defraud the the rest of the rest the United States. Voting fraud affects all Americans.

Allegations of fraud with no evidence shouldn't affect any Americans....

We are weeks now of the allegations of fraud... Where is the evidence... Evidence that will stand up in court...

Where is it?

No messages of 'it is coming' or 'it is everywhere'... Accusing people of a crime and having no evidence is a crime in itself...

Sounds like you are as sick of this as I am and the judges are. That idiot AG in Texas now claims 80 million fraudulent votes with no evidence. They pull this crap out of their ass and expect people to enjoy the scent. It's beyond ridiculous.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

and what does this have to do with anything? the Texas lawsuit has been spelled out clearly, with references, sections of the states constitutions violated and how that impacted an outcomes against what their state (and now what, 9 others) voted fairly for.

did these states or did they not follow their own constitutional process to change how people voted in this election?

a YES | NO question doesn't contain this many excuses.

It has everything to do with it. Texas has no grounds to sue these states to force them to do anything. It's completely without merit.

Have you read the pleadings?

Your response indicates that you haven't, but if you have, I want to hear what legal authority you are relying on to counter that argued by Texas.

Complaint

What's your response?