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

[BlindBoo]

The argument actually IS that the US Constitution says that the state legislatures - and no one else - will decide the state election laws.

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.

The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures.

The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Also the Gov. of Texas was sued by the Texas legislature for the same type of changes to the Texas election process. They lost too.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So now we have 17 states joining with Texas. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.

 

[Toro]

 

[Skylar]

So now we have 17 states joining with Texas. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.

They're not parties to the suit. Though they are definitely supporting at least some parts of Texas' effort.

If only their support magically granted Texas standing, it might be of some relevance.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So now we have 17 states joining with Texas. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.

They're not parties to the suit. Though they are definitely supporting Texas' effort.

If only their support magically granted Texas standing, it might be of some relevance.

Well, thank you SOOOO much for carefully disputing a point I didn't make. I'm so very glad you took the time to inform me that they weren't parties to the suit, given that I didn't say they were.

If only your constant chanting of, "Texas doesn't have standing, because . . . I don't want it to!!!" magically created reality, it might be of some relevance, as well.

How's about you join the rest of us in recognizing that you're a dumbass, and pipe the fuck down until the courts decide whether or not Texas has standing?

 

[JLW]

View attachment 427146

The lawsuit is a farce. The whole purpose of the Texas law suit is to rile up the Trump base with lies. Not to win. Get them angry. Get them crazed. It will make the Trumpist lemmings all the more easy to manipulate by their masters in the future.

 

[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.

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

Like so many “Pepe The Frogs” hopping from one failed lily pad to the next.

 

[Skylar]

So now we have 17 states joining with Texas. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.

They're not parties to the suit. Though they are definitely supporting Texas' effort.

If only their support magically granted Texas standing, it might be of some relevance.

Well, thank you SOOOO much for carefully disputing a point I didn't make. I'm so very glad you took the time to inform me that they weren't parties to the suit, given that I didn't say they were.

If only your constant chanting of, "Texas doesn't have standing, because . . . I don't want it to!!!" magically created reality, it might be of some relevance, as well.

How's about you join the rest of us in recognizing that you're a dumbass, and pipe the fuck down until the courts decide whether or not Texas has standing?

Texas is disputing the election laws and practices of OTHER states. They have no jurisdiction nor standing. The election laws are a closed loop, made, adjudicated and implemented within the State itself.

The only state the Texas AG has any say over elections....is Texas. The suit is such pseudo-legal gibberish, that the Texas Solicitor General who represents Texas before the Supreme Court, didn't sign it.

I'm hardly the first or only person to notice laughably obvious hole in their legal reasoning.

Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine, wrote on his popular legal blog that the suit was “utter garbage” and also disputed the idea that Texas had standing, noting that “it has no say over how other states choose electors.”

Or.....

Paul Smith, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who has argued voting rights cases at the Supreme Court, said the case was “wacko.”

.....The professor added that Texas could run into trouble in proving that it has grounds to sue, known in legal terms as “standing.”

“It’s totally unprecedented, the idea that one state would, at the Supreme Court, claim that other states’ votes were cast in the wrong way — that’s never happened,” he said. “What is the injury to the state of Texas because Pennsylvania’s votes were cast for Mr. Biden instead of Mr. Trump? There is no connection there.”

Or....

University of Texas Law Professor Steve Vladeck led the charge of those who called this a “dangerous” stunt that has no prospect of being heard by the Supreme Court.

Or.....

“Texas here is asking the Supreme Court for permission to sue Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin over how those other states conducted their own elections,” he said. “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.”
“It’s just unbelievable to any sane, normal person who understands the structure of our constitutional system and how it functions,” he added.

Or.....

Laurence Tribe, legal scholar and professor at Harvard Law School, also suggested that Texas may not have standing to bring the case and therefore the court may decide not to hear it.
"This is truly ridiculous," Tribe said. "If the 50 sister States could sue one another to overturn each other's election results, there'd be a mind-blowing cascade of at least 50! (ie 50 x 49 x 48 x ... x3 x2) intra-family Electoral College megasuits. Endless!"

 

[Toro]

The lawsuit is a farce. The whole purpose of the Texas law suit is to rile up the Trump base with lies. Not to win. Get them angry. Get them crazed. It will make the Trumpist lemmings all the more easy to manipulate by their masters in the future.

Yeah, this Texas AG is a real piece of work. He's had several people who resigned - and I mean last week - who wrote a letter to the authorities that he should be charged for all sorts of things, i.e. bribery, etc.

What are the odds that this douchebag is doing this to create political cover to protect his corrupt hide?

 

[Toro]

How's about you join the rest of us in recognizing that you're a dumbass, and pipe the fuck down until the courts decide whether or not Texas has standing?

Given that your retarded side is 1-54 in the courts thus far, I wouldn't be putting too many chips down on SCOTUS ruling in your favor.
But you will, because cult.

 

[busybee01]

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.

They created it after the fact.

Fucking moron, Pennsylvania used mail-in ballots in their primary election in accordance with the new law. Republicans had their opportunity then to challenge the constitutionality of that law if it were really a problem for them. They don't get to sit on that position and wait to see if they win or lose an election, and then attempt to disenfranchise 2.6 million voters because they lost the election over a law that was constitutional when the election was held and the voters followed the law.

So if you don't contest the constitutionality of some law by some arbitrary deadline that Dims have defined, then you can never contest it? What about Plessy vs. Fergusen? How long after the segregation laws were passed was that law contested?

You're a fucking idiot.

Dim fraud has disenfranchised 74 million voters, douchebag.

You are trying to disenfranchise 80 million voters.

No, YOU are, by insisting that the election be decided by tainted election procedures.

You are falsely claiming that the election was tainted when multiple judges disagree with you.

 

[busybee01]

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.

There is going to be no second Trump term. Dominion is just some crazy right wing nutjob conspiracy hoax.

 

[Skylar]

The lawsuit is a farce. The whole purpose of the Texas law suit is to rile up the Trump base with lies. Not to win. Get them angry. Get them crazed. It will make the Trumpist lemmings all the more easy to manipulate by their masters in the future.

Yeah, this Texas AG is a real piece of work. He's had several people who resigned - and I mean last week - who wrote a letter to the authorities that he should be charged for all sorts of things, i.e. bribery, etc.

What are the odds that this douchebag is doing this to create political cover to protect his corrupt hide?

Paxton, who is currently under indictment for federal felonies and under FBI investigation for several more, is looking to trade some useless political theater for pre-emptive pardons.

The suit is such a steam pile of pseudo-legal bullshit that the Texas Solicitor General, the person who represents Texas before the Supreme Court, didn't sign it.

 

[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.

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.

The case is going nowhere.

 

[Skylar]

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.

There is going to be no second Trump term. Dominion is just some crazy right wing nutjob conspiracy hoax.

The dominion conspiracy is double stupid.

First, there's nothing to support it. So belief in the dominion batshit is just pure, unrefined dipshittery.

Second, its been demonstrably disproven. If Dominion voting machines were changing votes, then physical paper ballot (with the votes written right on it for the voter to review) would be wildly different than the electronic vote tallies.

Georgia hand counted the physical ballots. The hand recount of the physical ballots matched the electronic tallies with WAY more than 99% accuracy.

Obliterating this silly turd of a conspiracy.

 

[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.

the legislative branch includes the executive?

that's some funny assed shit right there.

So you think the legislature can make laws all by themselves?

 

[Faun]

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.

They created it after the fact.

Fucking moron, Pennsylvania used mail-in ballots in their primary election in accordance with the new law. Republicans had their opportunity then to challenge the constitutionality of that law if it were really a problem for them. They don't get to sit on that position and wait to see if they win or lose an election, and then attempt to disenfranchise 2.6 million voters because they lost the election over a law that was constitutional when the election was held and the voters followed the law.

So if you don't contest the constitutionality of some law by some arbitrary deadline that Dims have defined, then you can never contest it? What about Plessy vs. Fergusen? How long after the segregation laws were passed was that law contested?

You're a fucking idiot.

Dim fraud has disenfranchised 74 million voters, douchebag.

You are trying to disenfranchise 80 million voters.

No, YOU are, by insisting that the election be decided by tainted election procedures.

You are falsely claiming that the election was tainted when multiple judges disagree with you.

Not just multiple judges -- every judge. Some even appointed by Trump.

And not just judges, but Trump's own Director of CISA, who Trump fired after he stated there was no evidence of vote flipping.

And not just judges and CISA, but Trump's own Attorney General, who said they had not yet seen widespread fraud capable of overturning the election.

And not just judges, CISA and the Department of Justice, but me too.

 

[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.

No, they don't, no more than the US Congress includes the President. The state Supreme Court has the job of APPLYING the state Constitution. Do not give me this leftist "I really hope you fall for it" bullshit about "they were just interpreting the law when they decided that the deadline was three days later." There's no interpretation involved in fucking numbers.

You have no clue what is in the Pennsylvania state constitution.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The case is going nowhere.

Its theater for dipshits.

And Paxton's hail mary to get a pre-emptive pardon for the federal crimes he's currently under indictment for as well as the OTHER felonies that he's under investigation for by the FBI. The suit is such a steaming pile of pseudo-legal horseshit, that the Texas Solicitor General wouldn't sign it.

Texas doesn't even have standing in the issues they're seeking to litigate.

 

[busybee01]

Missouri is now in as well.

So that would now be Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Missouri filing suit against the four Dumbass states.

Missouri joins 'fight' alongside Texas to challenge election before Supreme Court

Schmitt says he'll help 'lead the effort' in support of Texas' filing

www.foxnews.com

The Dumbass states are the ones filing this idiotic suit that will be thrown out just like the rest of them.

The Supreme Court has already ordered the cheating states to respond to the Texas' suit.
They have until tomorrow, just so you know.

So has the suit been "thrown out"? No effin way.

The Supreme Court has already thrown out one suit after each side was asked for a respomse. Trump and his supporters are the cheaters.

Man, you must have a huge ass hole, because you are pulling all sorts of stuff out of it.

You use your ass hole to do your thinking,

And you ARE an asshole, who does no thinking whatsoever.

Your idea of thinking is parroting Trump.