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

[Billiejeens]

Their constitution process is controlled by the courts of their state. Not by the courts of another state.

Not true, moron.

One state can't interpret the constitution of another state.

The Supreme Court can.

The supreme court gives great deference to the courts of the states. After all, who knows more about the legislative intent, than those that wrote it.

Courts don't write legislation.

 

[colfax_m]

Think about it.

If they didn't understand - here is video showing fraud, here is the mathematical impossibility of what you say happened, happening, a conceptual idea of -
Laws were passed
Laws were not followed
Is not going to be understood.

You'd think that you'd have won some court cases if these allegations were backed up with so much evidence.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

LOL Just the will of the voters.

The will of the voters is not immune to the law of the land or superior to it.
What about the will of the voters who have been disenfranchised by a handful of key states
that have changed their voting laws to allow for a huge increase in mail in ballots that are illegally
processed (as in Georgia in their "pipe bursting" incident)?

 

[postman]

The supreme court gives great deference to the courts of the states. After all, who knows more about the legislative intent, than those that wrote it.

The Supreme Court over rules state laws all the time, moron.

The supreme court invalidates state laws that are unconstitutional or extra-legal.

But the court doesn't mandate a states laws be followed. Ex: the court can't point to the states prisoners on death row, and insist they be executed.

 

[postman]

Great.

Did the states bypass their own constitution and laws to change voting laws?

I don't think so. Do you have any examples from the lawsuit that you think are relevant?

the argument seems to be that the state constitution has rules for "absentee ballots", and they sought to create a new class of balloting not defined in the constitution

So the state legislature created a new type of ballot, called a "mail-in" ballot, under rules the state legislature enacted.

 

[postman]

The supreme court gives great deference to the courts of the states. After all, who knows more about the legislative intent, than those that wrote it.

Courts don't write legislation.

Case law defines legislation.
In essence they write the regulations.

 

[BlindBoo]

LOL Just the will of the voters.

The will of the voters is not immune to the law of the land or superior to it.
What about the will of the voters who have been disenfranchised by a handful of key states
that have changed their voting laws to allow for a huge increase in mail in ballots that are illegally
processed (as in Georgia in their "pipe bursting" incident)?

The changes that hugely increased mail in ballots (Universal absentees) were passed by the legislatures. The changes made addressed grey areas of the law. Some of these changes were challenged both sides won some and lost some. None of them rose to the level of massive fraud that could change the outcome of the vote.

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

 

[iceberg]

Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...

Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.

My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.

RUSSIA.

sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.

give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.

Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree. There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries. Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited. Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it? Of course. Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).

In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED. Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability. But none of them want to anger Trump. Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.

How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.

Russia red meat for left. Wheeee

It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.

...oh not this again.

stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.

your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.

You just never stop.

Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.

You non stop attack and demonize the left.

Look to your own.

I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, NAZIS, racists or the like.

I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.

I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying yet excuse the rioters.

We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.

And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written. I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.

Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.

I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud. I disagreed with you. And you go apeshit. Every. single. time.

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.

IMO - yes. Challenges have been upheld. PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.

So if I rob liqour store 'A' and get away with it, that means they can't arrest me for robbing liqour store 'B?'

Apples and Oranges.

If Liquor store B gets robbed, and the owner waits 9 months to report it...good luck.

In Texas the statute of limitations gives you 5 years to file. So in 9 months he could still report it.

True, but you are still arguing apples and oranges here.

well if "good luck" meant good luck catching him, yea. a bit late. i'm just talking legal process, not desired outcome.

Ok, but I don't think the two are really comparable - for one, look at what the PA court (I think it was PA) said in regards to their attempting to claim illegal change of election rules. The judge made a point of telling them they ran primaries under the rules when it suited them and allowed the general election to proceed without dispute until AFTER. That would certainly imply they were fine with it when it suited them. And, as the judge pointed out, it would disenfranchise thousands of voters who voted in good faith by the rules they were provided. These aren't illegal voters or fraudulent votes. This is a case of people trying to use a relatively obscure legal challenge to knowingly and deliberately disenfranchise voters and that is just plain wrong, wouldn't you agree?

that would be one point of view that would be valid. however, another valid point of view is they didn't see the impact of the changes until now.

if you change the rules to something and i simply don't respond, you're after an implied acceptance at this point. as for doing things when it suits your purpose, this is what about *in my mind* most of the election changes were about - suiting the purpose of the left to do so, so they did.

so while you can have a valid argument, i simply ask we hold both sides accountable to said argument.

 

[postman]

Courts fill in the details to the laws that legislatures write. Becoming part of the law.

 

[iceberg]

Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...

Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.

My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.

RUSSIA.

sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.

give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.

Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree. There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries. Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited. Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it? Of course. Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).

In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED. Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability. But none of them want to anger Trump. Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.

How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.

Russia red meat for left. Wheeee

It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.

...oh not this again.

stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.

your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.

You just never stop.

Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.

You non stop attack and demonize the left.

Look to your own.

I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, NAZIS, racists or the like.

I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.

I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying yet excuse the rioters.

We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.

And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written. I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.

Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.

I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud. I disagreed with you. And you go apeshit. Every. single. time.

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.

IMO - yes. Challenges have been upheld. PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.

Does running a primary constitute acceptance of circumventing their laws?

Ie, did the legislative branch validate the new laws or did another branch create them?

Running a primary as well as running a general election does.

Did the legislative branch create these changes and vote on them?

Is there a link that says they are valid if uncontested and used?

No.
No.
Some were contested, and used anyway.

and this is what i am trying to find out in the end.

1 - what is the documented process for the state to change their elections laws?
2 - was the processes followed in order to do so?

if it was then showing me that shouldn't be too difficult. the bulk of the arguments i hear are that oh it doesn't impact texas, why do they care? didn't change election, hush and so forth.

so in effect, they are fine with breaking the law "if it suits their purpose" and will attack you if you demand accountability. that is what i am seeing.

no one is really saying that i have seen PA and the other 3 states did it correctly, they are saying it's none of the other states suing them's business.

whether it is or not isn't my point of discussion. DID THESE STATES FOLLOW THEIR OWN LAWS? if not, follow up and prosecute.

removing yourself from prosecution because you really really want something and think it's OK in this instance in my mind is how we got here.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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...

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

Oh please we have just had several years of Dems accusing every one who doesn't share their agenda with every crime misdemeanor and/or perversion they can think of without the first shred of evidence. Best expect the shoe to be on the other foot if Biden should actually manage to sleeze his way into office and for impeachment proceedings to commence immediately. Besides who are you to claim the evidence is invalid before it is even all presented? If those States have accepted illegal votes or deliberately encouraged illegal voting in a Federal election they have committed a crime against the Nation.

 

[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...

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

Oh please we have just had several years of Dems accusing every one who doesn't share their agenda with every crime misdemeanor and/or perversion they can think of without the first shred of evidence. Best expect the shoe to be on the other foot if Biden should actually manage to sleeze his way into office and for impeachment proceedings to commence immediately. Besides who are you to claim the evidence is invalid before it is even all presented? If those States have accepted illegal votes or deliberately encouraged illegal voting in a Federal election they have committed a crime against the Nation.

The "evidence" has been presented. 52 judges (including Rump judges) laughed it out of court.

 

[Toro]

The TX lawsuit just regurgitates old claims that have already been thrown out of court, including claims by the drunk lady in MI.

rofl

 

[Toro]

 

[Lesh]

Oh please we have just had several years of Dems accusing every one who doesn't share their agenda with every crime misdemeanor and/or perversion they can think of without the first shred of evidence. Best expect the shoe to be on the other foot if Biden should actually manage to sleeze his way into office and for impeachment proceedings to commence immediately. Besides who are you to claim the evidence is invalid before it is even all presented? If those States have accepted illegal votes or deliberately encouraged illegal voting in a Federal election they have committed a crime against the Nation.

Wow. So because you feel wronged over something completely different that affects this election how?

That fails basic logic. Sorry your feewings were hewt snowflake but like...tough shit. You don't get to overturn an election based on your feelings.

As far as evidence...it's been over a month and about 60 court cases...when were you planning on presenting this "evidence"?

 

[iceberg]

The TX lawsuit just regurgitates old claims that have already been thrown out of court, including claims by the drunk lady in MI.

View attachment 427007



rofl

then it should be ok with you as this is all you do.

regurgitate shit with every post to keep the WAH I HATE TRUMP WAH theme going.

 

[Cecilie1200]

yet the SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case.

They have to hear it to dismiss it.

Except that dismissing it isn't a requirement, Fart. The Supreme Court also has the option of just refusing the case.

 

[Rogue AI]

Think about it.

If they didn't understand - here is video showing fraud, here is the mathematical impossibility of what you say happened, happening, a conceptual idea of -
Laws were passed
Laws were not followed
Is not going to be understood.

You'd think that you'd have won some court cases if these allegations were backed up with so much evidence.

The evidence in the Texas suit is state legislation as the source, then memoranda and other unlawful communications that directly violated said legislation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My favorite cult argument is "Oh, Orange Jesus appointed three Justices, so they'll rule is in his favor."

rofl

Its a deeply corrupt argument. As if the justices are more loyal to Trump personally for appoint them......then to the law or the constitution.

"It's a deeply corrupt argument, this one that I have ASSumed you're making because it's the one I would make."

Too bad for you that the argument we're ACTUALLY making is that the Justices in question are loyal to law and order.

 

[iceberg]

yet the SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case.

They have to hear it to dismiss it.

Except that dismissing it isn't a requirement, Fart. The Supreme Court also has the option of just refusing the case.

whole lot of farting in here these days.

i fear i started a bad trend with the duck.