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

[bripat9643]

Folks have mentioned it, but it is worth repeating. There are two possibilities to settle the vote fraud cases, assuming nothing crazy happens, and in both cases President Trump wins.

1) The states with the obvious voter fraud are actually controlled by Republican legislatures and since there is no way to sort out the mail in ballots and other voter fraud, the state legislatures will give their state Electoral votes for President Trump.

2) The states with the obvious voter fraud fail to respond with an alternative by Thursday, thus the House votes with each state getting a vote. Since there are more Republican states, President Trump will get more House votes and thus be re-elected. MAGA!

1. No voter fraud has been proven. What you want is for state legislatures to overturn the will of the people.

2. Since there was no voter fraud, they don't have to come up with anything. There is no such provision in the Constitution.

When will you turds stop bleating the obvious lie that no voter fraud has been proven?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Here's one that went through the legislature.

Making it easier to cheat and commit election fraud. What a wonderful advance for election security.
Democrats lead the way once again.

 

[Lesh]

IF...the SC accepts this insanity...it will allow any state to challenge how any other state runs their elections.

In essence it will force a national election law.

That's not likely to happen

 

[Care4all]

Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.

People calling it fraud are way off base.

Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?

After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?

I do not think so.

And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?

Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?

There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.

Do you ever read the articles? Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?

Yeah, and is was one of the things the Texas case said was an irregularity or illegal.

The SC won't take the case is my bet, or take it for some time down the road, where the people's choice of Biden is not affected.

The states are not hurt by how the other states run their elections. They have no standing.

Texans voted, Texans appointed their electors. What another state does is none of their bee's wax, according to the constitution.... imo. The people of those 4 states chose Biden, by landslides in most of them....there is no ambiguity. The laws tweaked by the court rulings, truly matters naught...Biden, was chosen by their citizens to be our next president, in good faith.... they followed the election laws they were told were legal.

 

[iceberg]

explain where i was talking about the electors vs. the states going outside their own constitutional process.

The lawsuit is talking about the electors. Are you going off on your own tangent or are you discussing the lawsuit?

the lawsuit is about these states not following their outlined constitutional process. the electors is a remedy.

now - you keep avoiding this part of the convo and running away like a little schoolgirl -

show me where these states followed their own documented process to make the changes they did in fact make.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

IF...the SC accepts this insanity...it will allow any state to challenge how any other state runs their elections.

In essence it will force a national election law.

That's not likely to happen

Not all the case. Keep flailing.

 

[iceberg]

IF...the SC accepts this insanity...it will allow any state to challenge how any other state runs their elections.

In essence it will force a national election law.

That's not likely to happen

Not all the case. Keep flailing.

yea, he misses the point that the suit isn't telling them how to run their elections, it's telling them they must follow their constitutional process to do so.

 

[bripat9643]

Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.

People calling it fraud are way off base.

Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?

After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?

I do not think so.

And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?

Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?

There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.

Do you ever read the articles? Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?

Yeah, and is was one of the things the Texas case said was an irregularity or illegal.

The SC won't take the case is my bet, or take it for some time down the road, where the people's choice of Biden is not affected.

The states are not hurt by how the other states run their elections. They have no standing.

Yes, they are. I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.

Texans voted, Texans appointed their electors. What another state does is none of their bee's wax, according to the constitution.... imo. The people of those 4 states chose Biden, by landslides in most of them....there is no ambiguity. The laws tweaked by the court rulings, truly matters naught...Biden, was chosen by their citizens to be our next president, in good faith.... they followed the election laws they were told were legal.

Your opinion isn't worth shit. So if another state approves slavery, that's none of your business? You realize that your fucking stupid, don't you?

 

[iceberg]

Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.

People calling it fraud are way off base.

Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?

After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?

I do not think so.

And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?

Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?

There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.

Do you ever read the articles? Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?

Yeah, and is was one of the things the Texas case said was an irregularity or illegal.

The SC won't take the case is my bet, or take it for some time down the road, where the people's choice of Biden is not affected.

The states are not hurt by how the other states run their elections. They have no standing.

Texans voted, Texans appointed their electors. What another state does is none of their bee's wax, according to the constitution.... imo. The people of those 4 states chose Biden, by landslides in most of them....there is no ambiguity. The laws tweaked by the court rulings, truly matters naught...Biden, was chosen by their citizens to be our next president, in good faith.... they followed the election laws they were told were legal.

hurt is your point of view.

what you are advocating is - if you really really want something, fuck the laws. do it. bypass checks and balances and get it done.

and we wonder why we're so lawless these days.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

Please show me where these 4 states did that.

Here's one that went through the legislature.

Harrisburg, PA – Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with voter-friendly election reforms.

Governor Wolf Signs Election Reform Bill Including New Mail-in Voting

Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with...

www.governor.pa.gov

and that was pre-covid. what did PA do *after* covid to change their systems?

nice try but i'm not chasing your turds down the toilet. please stick to the lawsuit.

The new law passed by the Legislature is at the heart of the issues in PA. If you don't understand those you're just pissing in the wind.

"Consider the scenario in which it was used for the first time in a general election: during a public health crisis, with record voter turnout, and in a battleground state facing the ire of a president determined to undermine the voting process and spread misinformation.

“This was very much the perfect storm of the implementation of the new voting law in Pennsylvania,” said Suzanne Almeida, the former interim executive director and current counsel at the good-government group Common Cause Pennsylvania. “It was not perfect, but votes happened and they got counted and we have an outcome.”

Pandemic, partisan attacks exposed gaps in Pa.’s new mail-in voting law

While many lawmakers agree changes are needed, finding common ground in the current hyper-partisan climate might be impossible.

www.inquirer.com

The extenuating circumstances did, however, magnify gaps in a law that was supposed to make voting easier. Those holes regarding “cured” ballots and signature matching then had to be filled through guidance from the Department of State, which prompted court challenges and opened the door for some Republicans — from President Donald Trump to state and local lawmakers — to launch unsubstantiated claims that the executive and judicial branches were attempting to swing the election in favor of Democrat Joe Biden.
“Any of these areas where the secretary has had to make a call that has then been questioned by the legislature are, in my mind, faults of not having clear statutory guidance,” said Daniel Mallinson, an assistant professor of public policy and administration at Penn State Harrisburg.

 

[colfax_m]

the lawsuit is about these states not following their outlined constitutional process. the electors is a remedy.

now - you keep avoiding this part of the convo and running away like a little schoolgirl -

show me where these states followed their own documented process to make the changes they did in fact make.

You're referring to their constitutional process for deciding electors. So yeah, this is essential to the court case.

 

[iceberg]

the lawsuit is about these states not following their outlined constitutional process. the electors is a remedy.

now - you keep avoiding this part of the convo and running away like a little schoolgirl -

show me where these states followed their own documented process to make the changes they did in fact make.

You're referring to their constitutional process for deciding electors. So yeah, this is essential to the court case.

ok fine.

now please show me how these states followed their own documented and legally binding process to make the changes they did.

i've asked 4 times and you keep diverting.

 

[postman]

The SC won't take the case is my bet, or take it for some time down the road, where the people's choice of Biden is not affected.

The supreme court has until Tuesday to either do something, or the entire case becomes moot. Once the electors vote, there is no constitutional way to change what happens after that.

The safe harbor makes the EC vote not subject to debate.

 

[colfax_m]

ok fine.

now please show me how these states followed their own documented and legally binding process to make the changes they did.

i've asked 4 times and you keep diverting.

This is about the Texas lawsuit, and the first hurdle that needs to be addressed is whether Texas is following a constitutional process for challenging the way other states chose their electors.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, you're just going to completely IGNORE Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 795 (1983)?

Go on. What does this decision have to do with the topic at hand. Please, mail the argument.

The impact of votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast for the various candidate in other States. See also the Mass. v. EPA case on standing.

Thus, the State of Texas has an interest in protecting its voters from such impact, especially one that violates the Electors Clause and very recent precedent surrounding its interpretation.

Now, what the fuck is your bullshit response?

 

[BlindBoo]

Here's one that went through the legislature.

Making it easier to cheat and commit election fraud. What a wonderful advance for election security.
Democrats lead the way once again.

Republican controlled legislature passed the bill.

Btw in MI it was the people who voted for Mail in ballots in 2018. By referendum. A power delegated to them, by guess who......

 

[Lesh]

yea, he misses the point that the suit isn't telling them how to run their elections, it's telling them they must follow their constitutional process to do so.

According to Texas.

Incidentally Texas ALSO bypassed their legislature in changing election rules.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

yea, he misses the point that the suit isn't telling them how to run their elections, it's telling them they must follow their constitutional process to do so.

Lying, muddying the waters, leading ignorant dupes astray.

Even as their ship goes down.

 

[iceberg]

yea, he misses the point that the suit isn't telling them how to run their elections, it's telling them they must follow their constitutional process to do so.

According to Texas.

Incidentally Texas ALSO bypassed their legislature in changing election rules.

so you view following constitutional process as "optional"

is that your argument? please, this will be fun.

 

[postman]

The states are not hurt by how the other states run their elections. They have no standing.

Yes, they are. I sure as hell was hurt by fraud being used to get Biden elected.

You can apply equal protection when your state has been given affirmative action.

You have a state which gets 1.2 EC votes for every million citizens, arguing equal protection with a state which gets 1.8 EC votes for every million citizens.