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

[Lysistrata]

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.

States right DO NOT include the right to defraud the other states, not by election rigging or any other method.

No state "defrauded" another state. The electoral votes of Texas went into trump's column. If one state can attack another state's execution of its own laws, what happens to the concept of state sovereignty? Can New York now sit in judgment of the laws of Texas, how they are passed, and how they are applied?

 

[mascale]

Per the Election Clause, per Federalist 59: The usurpation of the Supreme Court to propound a state grievance is what is tainted.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(People Pray for this to happen: Matt 25: 14-30!)

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well, that would depend on the law in question, and the court case which is brought to them.

But in this case, the law ultimately being violated is the US Constitution.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

States right DO NOT include the right to defraud the other states, not by election rigging or any other method.

No state "defrauded" another state. The electoral votes of Texas went into trump's column. If one state can attack another state's execution of its own laws, what happens to the concept of state sovereignty? Can New York now sit in judgment of the laws of Texas, how they are passed, and how they are applied?

Only if a law affecting that state has been violated.
As pointed out a few hours ago, Texas would also have to forfeit it's EVs and have a recount.

 

[mascale]

The Constitution is clear. Texas cannot interfere in the other state elections.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(People Pray for this to happen: Matt 25: 14-30!)

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You clearly didn't bother to read anything about the actual case, which is why you're now resorting to "It seems to be this, based on what I have imagined is going on".

The argument actually IS that the US Constitution says that the state legislatures - and no one else - will decide the state election laws. The legislatures of each of these four states passed election laws in accordance with the US Constitution's directive, and then government officials who are NOT the state legislature decided to change those laws on the fly, which is a violation of the US Constitution.

The changes in question, and who made them, depend on which state you're talking about.

 

[Faun]

That is a bad argument to attempt. A monority of voters elected this president in 2016. Were voters in the more populous states disenfranchised?

Every voter in every election whose candidate does not win is "disenfranchised" if that's how you wish to
look at things. The question is was an election fairly contested? Or not?

We know for absolutely certain the 2020 presidential election was as dirty and corrupt as can be.
And the aftermath has been corrupt too. Appeals to lower and state courts have been summarily rejected
out of hand.
The solution when lower courts refuse to honestly deal with things (ignoring Dominion and ballot fraud) is to take it to the Supreme Court.

Tbhe federal courts have rejected them as well. That includes judges appointed by Trump.

Yes. The Supreme Court has done it's job when the lower state and federal courts refused to do theirs
because they know no one is going to hold them accountable.

Disgusting but it's just what we saw in Gore v Bush in 2000. In the second Trump term I would like to see
some accountability from these petty autocrats in robes.

Anyone who can say he sees no evidence of fraud after being informed about Dominion needs to be
removed from office and lose any pensions or remunerations due.

Imbecile, there was nothing wrong with Dominion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, the actual words on the papers, which the legislature voted on and the governor signed, define legislation.

Your "essence" is so much leftist tyranny, and that's it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Social media is full of Trombies claiming that THIS IS IT! This is the lawsuit that overturns the election.

It is also full of Trombies congratulating themselves for not rioting and burning down cities in response to the election...”like the libs did”.

I feel a collision coming.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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"?

Nobody is trying to "overturn" an election. A great many people believe that corrupt officials manipulated the count to put who they wanted in office rather than the candidate that actually got the most votes. Why would anyone who wants a fair and honest election mind people checking to make sure that it was? All this resistance only convinces people you have something to hide. It would be a very bad idea to go on with as many Americans as is current thinking that what is being attempted is a coup rather than an election.

How many times do you need to check?

How many recounts are needed?

The answer is as many as you need until Trump is selected no matter if the evidence does not support the claim Trump lost because of fraud!

Hell courts have rejected every case except one and that one was overturned...

So how many times must you be told Trump lost?

Don't tell me. Prove it. We believe that's a lie and are not overly interested in sitting back and watching our beloved Nation turned into just another third world shithole. Plain enough.

 

[mascale]

The state legislatures can create election codes and state approved procedures. The Elections Clause prohibits Texas from interfering! Federalist 59, at the end.
__________________________
The people of America may be warmly attached to the government of the Union, at times when the particular rulers of particular States, stimulated by the natural rivalship of power, and by the hopes of personal aggrandizement, and supported by a strong faction in each of those States, may be in a very opposite temper. This diversity of sentiment between a majority of the people, and the individuals who have the greatest credit in their councils, is exemplified in some of the States at the present moment, on the present question. The scheme of separate confederacies, which will always nultiply the chances of ambition, will be a never failing bait to all such influential characters in the State administrations as are capable of preferring their own emolument and advancement to the public weal. With so effectual a weapon in their hands as the exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, a combination of a few such men, in a few of the most considerable States, where the temptation will always be the strongest, might accomplish the destruction of the Union, by seizing the opportunity of some casual dissatisfaction among the people (and which perhaps they may themselves have excited), to discontinue the choice of members for the federal House of Representatives. It ought never to be forgotten, that a firm union of this country, under an efficient government, will probably be an increasing object of jealousy to more than one nation of Europe; and that enterprises to subvert it will sometimes originate in the intrigues of foreign powers, and will seldom fail to be patronized and abetted by some of them. Its preservation, therefore ought in no case that can be avoided, to be committed to the guardianship of any but those whose situation will uniformly beget an immediate interest in the faithful and vigilant performance of the trust.
________________
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(People Pray for this to happen: Matt 25: 14-30!)

 

[Faun]

Social media is full of Trombies claiming that THIS IS IT! This is the lawsuit that overturns the election.

It is also full of Trombies congratulating themselves for not rioting and burning down cities in response to the election...”like the libs did”.

I feel a collision coming.

And when this one fails them, it will be the next one that will do it for them.

 

[candycorn]

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"?

Nobody is trying to "overturn" an election. A great many people believe that corrupt officials manipulated the count to put who they wanted in office rather than the candidate that actually got the most votes. Why would anyone who wants a fair and honest election mind people checking to make sure that it was? All this resistance only convinces people you have something to hide. It would be a very bad idea to go on with as many Americans as is current thinking that what is being attempted is a coup rather than an election.

How many times do you need to check?

How many recounts are needed?

The answer is as many as you need until Trump is selected no matter if the evidence does not support the claim Trump lost because of fraud!

Hell courts have rejected every case except one and that one was overturned...

So how many times must you be told Trump lost?

Don't tell me. Prove it. We believe that's a lie and are not overly interested in sitting back and watching our beloved Nation turned into just another third world shithole. Plain enough.

Georgia has been counted 3 times. Joe won every count. Thats proof enough for you to admit Joe won Georgia...right?

 

[busybee01]

The case in the OP has nothing to do with other cases, of course you know that, but deflection seems to be all you have. STFU.

Well hi, Poser! I see your dumb ass is still Trolling me again over your stupid ploy I didn't fall for. You're the fucking dumbass who posted your DD 214 as a challenge to prove you heap big brave warrior & so you could display like a fucking peacock, an award you received. That is the epitome of a poser and just one of many reasons why I use that moniker to peg your dumb ass for so long. All along I refused to display my DD 214, and instead posted my VA Benefits letter as proof of MY SEA/Nam deployments as agreed. And your dumb ass dismissed that as non-proof because it wasn't a DD 214...fucking bullshitter!

As far as the single item on topic, ALL of the cases have a common thread, notwithstanding your bullshit of trying to decouple them, one from another; Trump & Co. trying to put their collective thumbs on the scale. Tough shit Tex...you don't want to see it because you're just a fucking puppet. So piss off now Lil' Tex. You're the one making a fool of himself with your childish behavior in your 70's. TaTa Poser!

Well punk, first of all I'm not in my 70s and there in nothing in the TX suit that alleges any fraud. It simply points out States not following their own State laws, violations of due process and violations of the Constitution.

If you didn't spend so much time lying and deflecting you might be able to keep up. LMAO

.

They are providing no evidence. This is a rehash of the same arguments that have been thrown out in state and federal courts.

 

[Indeependent]

The case in the OP has nothing to do with other cases, of course you know that, but deflection seems to be all you have. STFU.

Well hi, Poser! I see your dumb ass is still Trolling me again over your stupid ploy I didn't fall for. You're the fucking dumbass who posted your DD 214 as a challenge to prove you heap big brave warrior & so you could display like a fucking peacock, an award you received. That is the epitome of a poser and just one of many reasons why I use that moniker to peg your dumb ass for so long. All along I refused to display my DD 214, and instead posted my VA Benefits letter as proof of MY SEA/Nam deployments as agreed. And your dumb ass dismissed that as non-proof because it wasn't a DD 214...fucking bullshitter!

As far as the single item on topic, ALL of the cases have a common thread, notwithstanding your bullshit of trying to decouple them, one from another; Trump & Co. trying to put their collective thumbs on the scale. Tough shit Tex...you don't want to see it because you're just a fucking puppet. So piss off now Lil' Tex. You're the one making a fool of himself with your childish behavior in your 70's. TaTa Poser!

Well punk, first of all I'm not in my 70s and there in nothing in the TX suit that alleges any fraud. It simply points out States not following their own State laws, violations of due process and violations of the Constitution.

If you didn't spend so much time lying and deflecting you might be able to keep up. LMAO

.

They are providing no evidence. This is a rehash of the same arguments that have been thrown out in state and federal courts.

Do you know the case they are presenting?

 

[busybee01]

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.

Oh, spare us with the false equivalency bullshit. "We don't have to follow the law, because we don't have the pure mob rule democracy that we want!!!"

The operative part of the phrase "equal protection under the law" is actually "UNDER THE LAW". The law - in this case, the US Constitution - says that election laws are set by state legislatures. Not by the governor, not by the state Supreme Court, not by the Secretary of State. If a state's election was being governed by arbitrary decisions made by those other people, rather than by the laws passed by the state legislature, then that is a violation of the US Constitution.

And there's no amount of whining that "Well, the whole election is not fair, because it isn't done the way I think it should be!!!" that's going to change that fact, or be worth a taco fart in a wind tunnel to anyone here.

State legislatures include the Governor. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret state constitutions. State officials also have the right to interpret laws. If that interpretation conflicts with the legislature then the legislature can pass a propos3ed law subject to approval of the Governor.

 

[busybee01]

The case in the OP has nothing to do with other cases, of course you know that, but deflection seems to be all you have. STFU.

Well hi, Poser! I see your dumb ass is still Trolling me again over your stupid ploy I didn't fall for. You're the fucking dumbass who posted your DD 214 as a challenge to prove you heap big brave warrior & so you could display like a fucking peacock, an award you received. That is the epitome of a poser and just one of many reasons why I use that moniker to peg your dumb ass for so long. All along I refused to display my DD 214, and instead posted my VA Benefits letter as proof of MY SEA/Nam deployments as agreed. And your dumb ass dismissed that as non-proof because it wasn't a DD 214...fucking bullshitter!

As far as the single item on topic, ALL of the cases have a common thread, notwithstanding your bullshit of trying to decouple them, one from another; Trump & Co. trying to put their collective thumbs on the scale. Tough shit Tex...you don't want to see it because you're just a fucking puppet. So piss off now Lil' Tex. You're the one making a fool of himself with your childish behavior in your 70's. TaTa Poser!

Well punk, first of all I'm not in my 70s and there in nothing in the TX suit that alleges any fraud. It simply points out States not following their own State laws, violations of due process and violations of the Constitution.

If you didn't spend so much time lying and deflecting you might be able to keep up. LMAO

.

They are providing no evidence. This is a rehash of the same arguments that have been thrown out in state and federal courts.

Do you know the case they are presenting?

It is just rehashed cow manure that has been rejected by state and federal courts. In these states, there is plenty of cow manure they can use.

 

[Indeependent]

The case in the OP has nothing to do with other cases, of course you know that, but deflection seems to be all you have. STFU.

Well hi, Poser! I see your dumb ass is still Trolling me again over your stupid ploy I didn't fall for. You're the fucking dumbass who posted your DD 214 as a challenge to prove you heap big brave warrior & so you could display like a fucking peacock, an award you received. That is the epitome of a poser and just one of many reasons why I use that moniker to peg your dumb ass for so long. All along I refused to display my DD 214, and instead posted my VA Benefits letter as proof of MY SEA/Nam deployments as agreed. And your dumb ass dismissed that as non-proof because it wasn't a DD 214...fucking bullshitter!

As far as the single item on topic, ALL of the cases have a common thread, notwithstanding your bullshit of trying to decouple them, one from another; Trump & Co. trying to put their collective thumbs on the scale. Tough shit Tex...you don't want to see it because you're just a fucking puppet. So piss off now Lil' Tex. You're the one making a fool of himself with your childish behavior in your 70's. TaTa Poser!

Well punk, first of all I'm not in my 70s and there in nothing in the TX suit that alleges any fraud. It simply points out States not following their own State laws, violations of due process and violations of the Constitution.

If you didn't spend so much time lying and deflecting you might be able to keep up. LMAO

.

They are providing no evidence. This is a rehash of the same arguments that have been thrown out in state and federal courts.

Do you know the case they are presenting?

It is just rehashed cow manure that has been rejected by state and federal courts. In these states, there is plenty of cow manure they can use.

I asked...Do you know the case they are presenting?
You responded...No.

Now go look up the case they are presenting; it should only take a few minutes.

 

[iceberg]

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.

Oh, spare us with the false equivalency bullshit. "We don't have to follow the law, because we don't have the pure mob rule democracy that we want!!!"

The operative part of the phrase "equal protection under the law" is actually "UNDER THE LAW". The law - in this case, the US Constitution - says that election laws are set by state legislatures. Not by the governor, not by the state Supreme Court, not by the Secretary of State. If a state's election was being governed by arbitrary decisions made by those other people, rather than by the laws passed by the state legislature, then that is a violation of the US Constitution.

And there's no amount of whining that "Well, the whole election is not fair, because it isn't done the way I think it should be!!!" that's going to change that fact, or be worth a taco fart in a wind tunnel to anyone here.

State legislatures include the Governor. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret state constitutions. State officials also have the right to interpret laws. If that interpretation conflicts with the legislature then the legislature can pass a propos3ed law subject to approval of the Governor.

the legislative branch includes the executive?

that's some funny assed shit right there.

 

[bravoactual]

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.​

In the end, which of course you do not show, his lawsuit was rejected.