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

[bripat9643]

It is illegal if it's not a law in the state, and unless the legislature voted to make it a law, then it's illegal. The governor or state courts cannot change the law unilaterally. What part of that don't you get?

Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS :: CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT :: ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS :: PART 1 - GOVERNOR :: § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;

law.justia.com

ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
PART 1 - GOVERNOR
§ 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor

(4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; ​

Where does it say anything about the governor?

 

[meaner gene]

Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS :: CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT :: ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS :: PART 1 - GOVERNOR :: § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;

law.justia.com

ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
PART 1 - GOVERNOR
§ 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor

(4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.

Those powers don't apply to election law. The Constitution grants those powers only to the state legislature. How many times does that fact have to pounded into your thick skull?

Wrong, the legislature granted the governor those powers, therefore it was an act of the legislature. If they did not want it to include election law, they would have codified an exception. They did not.

It's like giving somebody power of attorney without limitations.

 

[bripat9643]

Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS :: CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT :: ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS :: PART 1 - GOVERNOR :: § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;

law.justia.com

ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
PART 1 - GOVERNOR
§ 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor

(4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.

Those powers don't apply to election law. The Constitution grants those powers only to the state legislature. How many times does that fact have to pounded into your thick skull?

Wrong, the legislature granted the governor those powers, therefore it was an act of the legislature. If they did not want it to include election law, they would have codified an exception. They did not.

It's like giving somebody power of attorney without limitations.

The legislature can't amend the US constitution, fuck nuts.

 

[Faun]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' has already been adjudicated by the States themselves. The answer was a resounding 'No'.

State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.

So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.

I'm laughing at the audience.

But you are being laughed at.

While your candidate goes down in flames? The color of the sky in your world must be gray.

A world where a criminal like Biden can swindle his way into the presidency is indeed a gray world.

LOL

By swindle, you mean beat Impeached Trump by 74 electoral votes and 7 million popular votes while you shriek, "FRAUD," but after 36 days, have still not proven any fraud in a court of law.

5 millon of those votes were manufactured out of thin air.

LOLOL

Nah, you lie, fucking moron. Just like you how you just got caught lying about Michigan's mail-in voting, falsely claiming that wasn't supported by law. And of course, you're an admitted liar.

yes, I did lie about that. I said it simply to trigger morons like you, and it worked.

 

[meaner gene]

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS :: CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT :: ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS :: PART 1 - GOVERNOR :: § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;

law.justia.com

ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
PART 1 - GOVERNOR
§ 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor

(4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; ​

Where does it say anything about the governor?

To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.

Sounds like such things as expanding early voting to promote social distancing.

 

[bripat9643]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

Which rules were changed illegally?

Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.

Nope, nothing illegal about them.

Where does the state law of Michigan allow mail-in voting?

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

Section 168.759

That's absentee voting, moron. You've been told about the difference over 1000 times.

 

[meaner gene]

Wrong, the legislature granted the governor those powers, therefore it was an act of the legislature. If they did not want it to include election law, they would have codified an exception. They did not.

It's like giving somebody power of attorney without limitations.

The legislature can't amend the US constitution, fuck nuts.

They didn't. They gave the governor legislative powers.

IE: Allowed him to act under their authority as if done by themselves.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Voters Constitutional rights were violated. That is the issue. All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction. That did not happen.

This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights. This should not be about team politics.

No it should not.

And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.

When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...

make it about team politics and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.

That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.

Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.

I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.

Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.

What fraud?

There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.

Texas is saying the States in question violated the rules. This led to the increased chance of fraud.

There is no hard evidence YET, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence you ignore. You act like the people who did it wouldn't try to hide it.

The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the States have found no violation of their own rules.

Texas lacks standing to challenge the internal rules of another State.

The rules are supposed to come from the Legislatures as per the US Constitution, not the Executive or the Judicial.

State courts have the right to interpret state laws. State legislatures cannot ignore state constitutions.

State Constitutions don't cover how the State determines how they select electors, the US Constitution does and it says clearly it's up to the State Legislatures.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong, the legislature granted the governor those powers, therefore it was an act of the legislature. If they did not want it to include election law, they would have codified an exception. They did not.

It's like giving somebody power of attorney without limitations.

The legislature can't amend the US constitution, fuck nuts.

They didn't. They gave the governor legislative powers.

IE: Allowed him to act under their authority as if done by themselves.

They can't give powers away that were granted by the Constitution of the US, moron

 

[Lesh]

It is illegal if it's not a law in the state, and unless the legislature voted to make it a law, then it's illegal. The governor or state courts cannot change the law unilaterally. What part of that don't you get?

Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS :: CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT :: ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS :: PART 1 - GOVERNOR :: § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;

law.justia.com

ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
PART 1 - GOVERNOR
§ 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor

(4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.

Those powers don't apply to election law. The Constitution grants those powers only to the state legislature. How many times does that fact have to pounded into your thick skull?

Sorry but the SC has held that "the legislature" extends to the voters and to the courts as well

 

[meaner gene]

They didn't. They gave the governor legislative powers.

IE: Allowed him to act under their authority as if done by themselves.

They can't give powers away that were granted by the Constitution of the US, moron

Sure they can. It says by means determined by the legislature. If they determine the governor shall have those powers, that's a determination of the legislature.

It does NOT say done by the legislature, but determined by.

You lose.

 

[Faun]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

Which rules were changed illegally?

Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.

Nope, nothing illegal about them.

Where does the state law of Michigan allow mail-in voting?

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

Section 168.759

That's absentee voting, moron. You've been told about the difference over 1000 times.

LOLOLOL

Fucking moron, Michigan changed that law in December, 2018, removing the requirement that an excuse is needed to vote absentee. Now any Michigan resident registered voter can vote absentee with no excuse.

So you just lied again.

 

[meaner gene]

Those powers don't apply to election law. The Constitution grants those powers only to the state legislature. How many times does that fact have to pounded into your thick skull?

Sorry but the SC has held that "the legislature" extends to the voters and to the courts as well

Thanks !!!

 

[bripat9643]

It is illegal if it's not a law in the state, and unless the legislature voted to make it a law, then it's illegal. The governor or state courts cannot change the law unilaterally. What part of that don't you get?

Many states grant the chief executive special powers normally held by the legislature, during declared emergencies.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 38 - MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS :: CHAPTER 3 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT :: ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS :: PART 1 - GOVERNOR :: § 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor; termination of emergency;

law.justia.com

ARTICLE 3 - EMERGENCY POWERS
PART 1 - GOVERNOR
§ 38-3-51 - Emergency powers of Governor

(4) To perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.

Those powers don't apply to election law. The Constitution grants those powers only to the state legislature. How many times does that fact have to pounded into your thick skull?

Sorry but the SC has held that "the legislature" extends to the voters and to the courts as well

Utter bullshit.

Please cite the case.

 

[bripat9643]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

Which rules were changed illegally?

Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.

Nope, nothing illegal about them.

Where does the state law of Michigan allow mail-in voting?

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

Section 168.759

That's absentee voting, moron. You've been told about the difference over 1000 times.

LOLOLOL

Fucking moron, Michigan changed that law in December, 2018, removing the requirement that an excuse is needed to vote absentee. Now any Michigan resident registered voter can vote absentee with no excuse.

So you just lied again.

They still need to request a ballot. That isn't what Michigan did.

 

[Faun]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

Which rules were changed illegally?

Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.

Nope, nothing illegal about them.

Where does the state law of Michigan allow mail-in voting?

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

Section 168.759

That's absentee voting, moron. You've been told about the difference over 1000 times.

LOLOLOL

Fucking moron, Michigan changed that law in December, 2018, removing the requirement that an excuse is needed to vote absentee. Now any Michigan resident registered voter can vote absentee with no excuse.

So you just lied again.

They still need to request a ballot. That isn't what Michigan did.

Of course it is. You're lying again claiming they mailed out ballots without requests.

yes, I did lie about that. I said it simply to trigger morons like you, and it worked.

 

[dudmuck]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' has already been adjudicated by the States themselves. The answer was a resounding 'No'.

State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.

So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.

I'm laughing at the audience.

But you are being laughed at.

While your candidate goes down in flames? The color of the sky in your world must be gray.

A world where a criminal like Biden can swindle his way into the presidency is indeed a gray world.

 

[Kondor3]

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.

If the elected legislatures of those four States refuse to overturn the election, then that's the end of it. States rights in an election context as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Relevant sections of the COTUS, my emphasis...

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2...

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

14th Amendment, Section 2...

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

 

[OKTexas]

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

.

It does mention the potential for fraud in the voting methods adopted, and the states' legislatures' failure to properly adopt the voting methods with that high potential for fraud. But, fraud is not the key allegation. Only the failure of legislatures to properly adopt through legislation.

But, talking nuance to these mouth breathers is an exercise in frivolity, so I don't blame your for being brief.

Alleged fraud and potential for fraud are two different things. RIGHT???????

.