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

[Dogbiscuit]

This is like gay marriage. One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state. They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.

The problem with your analogy, is that normal people that live in those states, that allow gay marriage, dont want things shoved up their anus. They want to love and protect their children's future.
Same applies for their votes.

The analogy holds. With gay marriage it started when one state expanded the definition of marriage. Just like with voting, when states expanded the conditions of their elections

In both cases, states objected to the expansions, and sued to invalidate them. But in the end the USSC said that gay marriage in one state in no way harmed the marriages in another state, and using privileges and immunities, expanded gay marriage to all the states.

Why would it be no different when states expand voting?

It in no way harms the votes from the other states.

(p.s. that's what happened in the gay marriage argument)

Plain and simple, its a mental disease and disorder.
Our voting system is corrupted as well.
Both need to be fixed.
Here, please feel free to spread the word...

Homosexuals Anonymous - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[iceberg]

Actually there is no conflict. Georgia voted how they wanted to vote, and Texas voted how they wanted to vote.

This is like gay marriage. One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state. They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.

Actually there is a conflict ... And it has nothing to do with gay marriage.
The States filing the case with Supreme Court don't have a problem with Georgia or the other States voting the way their State Legislatures decide to vote.

The conflict is that the States in question did not follow laws passed by their State Legislatures as required by the US Constitution.
A State Governor, or State Court, cannot dictate election policy, and only the State Legislatures can, and through legislation.

Secondary ... The dictates were not followed/enforced equally by all precincts within each State in question.
That violates the Equal Protection Under the Law in regards to the vote and Articles in the Election Rights Act.

ooo - nice. that's gonna leave a mark.

 

[iceberg]

The constitution gives legislatures the power to choose the manner in which electors are chosen.... by the legislature voting themselves, or by the vote of the citizens, or by flipping a coin etc.

These legislatures chose to give up the legislature picking the electors, and gave it to the citizens to choose.

But the legislature did NOT approve or vote on the changes.

If they did, show me. Otherwise just stop the bullshit.

The duty was to decide if their legislature was going to choose the electors, if not, then who? All of our different legislatures chose the citizens vote would determine and choose their electors. Thats the "manner" in which they are chosen that the constitution speaks of.... once this is chosen, the constitutional requirement is fulfilled.

The US constitution does not govern the finer details of how an election process is done within each state.

The Texas case has no Constitutional standing.

Michiganders etc. can argue about their own processes not being followed in their own State courts.... but the US constitutional mandate of their legislatures choosing the "manner" of electing their electors, thru the citizen's vote, instead of the legislature's vote, was fulfilled, in my opinion.

you once again SURPRISE are not answering the question.

changing how we vote is a legislature function. please see SEPARATION OF POWERS to help understand why we do this.

now - please show me where these states did in fact go through their LEGISLATURE to make these changes.

all you gotta do. anything is else a shitshow distraction that i am simply not going to chase down.

Thats a State legal issue, the legislature can sue, the State Courts can decide if it broke their state laws or constitution on elections.

In Pennsylvania, the State Supreme Court ruled the changes made by the State for this election instead of the legislature did not.

The trump appeal to the SCOTUS, was unanimously denied a couple of days ago.

this isn't trumps appeal now is it? they denied that one and took this one on.

stop projecting fantasies.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes they can. The legislature is the only entity that can change the law any time it wants to

No it can't. The legislature can't change the rules the day before an election, nor can they change them AFTER the election has already occurred, which is what Texas seems to be asking the SC to do - change the rules of the election in these 4 states, AFTER the public has voted.

The whole suit is laughable.

Yes it can.

Even Bush v Gore said that they can't change the law during an election cycle.

That isn't what Bush v. Gore ruled.

 

[postman]

The conflict is that the States in question did not follow laws passed by their State Legislatures as required by the US Constitution.


A State Governor, or State Court, cannot dictate election policy, and only the State Legislatures can, and through legislation.

You ignored the answer.

Wrong See ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION

 

[Lesh]

Did you not catch the part where he proposes this after the election ?

And that's an important point.

In order to rule in favor of this lawsuit the SC would have to usurp an election that has already been held. Then what? Force a new election?

Highly unlikely that the SC would do that, especially to protect friggin Trump

 

[BlackSand]

A State Governor, or Court, cannot dictate election policy, and only the State Legislatures can.

Wrong See ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION

That violates the Equal Protection under law in regards to the vote and Articles in the Election Rights Act.

You do not want to use the Equal Protection argument.

That would require national elections taking that power away from the states

Arizona isn't listed as a State in suit.
And ... It doesn't take the power away from the States ... It simply says that every Precinct within the State has to follow the same rules.

Don't argue ... You are simply wrong ...

.

 

[BlackSand]

The conflict is that the States in question did not follow laws passed by their State Legislatures as required by the US Constitution.


A State Governor, or State Court, cannot dictate election policy, and only the State Legislatures can, and through legislation.

You ignored the answer.

Wrong See ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION

Arizona isn't the answer and isn't listed ... You are wrong ...

.

 

[bripat9643]

This is like gay marriage. One state allowing gay marriage in no way effects the heterosexual marriages in another state. They have no standing to sue that the other states marriages be invalidated.

The problem with your analogy, is that normal people that live in those states, that allow gay marriage, dont want things shoved up their anus. They want to love and protect their children's future.
Same applies for their votes.

The analogy holds. With gay marriage it started when one state expanded the definition of marriage. Just like with voting, when states expanded the conditions of their elections

In both cases, states objected to the expansions, and sued to invalidate them. But in the end the USSC said that gay marriage in one state in no way harmed the marriages in another state, and using privileges and immunities, expanded gay marriage to all the states.

Why would it be no different when states expand voting?

It in no way harms the votes from the other states.

(p.s. that's what happened in the gay marriage argument)

The ruling on gay marriage was utter horseshit and obviously wrong. Your descroption of what happened is wrong.

 

[Lesh]

That isn't what Bush v. Gore ruled.

You totally misunderstand or misinterpret G v B. It used equal protection as its "basis" and even there said that it should not be used as precedent (because it would invalidate every election held until we have a national statute on elections)

But then you are stupid and dishonest so...

 

[postman]

Secondary ... The dictates were not followed/enforced equally by all precincts within each State in question.
That violates the Equal Protection Under the Law in regards to the vote and Articles in the Election Rights Act.

Actually the 4th and 9th circuit are dealing with that right now. The original judgement was that there was an equal protection argument. But that was overturned because there is no legal remedy to equal protection violations.

Example, if one town has an average police or fire, or EMT response time twice that of the town next door. Can they sue for equal protection. Force their town to give them the same protection as the town next door?

The court used the legal maxim, where there is no remedy, there is no right. If the court can't fix it, you have no right to it.

And demanding the votes in every county in the country be handled equally is beyond what a court has jurisdiction to order.

 

[Dogbiscuit]

Did you not catch the part where he proposes this after the election ?

And that's an important point.

In order to rule in favor of this lawsuit the SC would have to usurp an election that has already been held. Then what? Force a new election?

Highly unlikely that the SC would do that, especially to protect friggin Trump

I didnt say I had the answers, did I ?
My question remains, since this case of suing is going to set a precedent for the future, then what might be a solution ?
We have an issue with fraud, or we wouldnt be where we are right now.

 

[Lesh]

Arizona isn't the answer and isn't listed ... You are wrong ...

The fuck are you babbling about. It ruled on what "the legislature" means

 

[bripat9643]

Did you not catch the part where he proposes this after the election ?

And that's an important point.

In order to rule in favor of this lawsuit the SC would have to usurp an election that has already been held. Then what? Force a new election?

Highly unlikely that the SC would do that, especially to protect friggin Trump

Then what: the election goes to Congress where each state has one vote.

 

[BlackSand]

Arizona isn't the answer and isn't listed ... You are wrong ...

The fuck are you babbling about. It ruled on what "the legislature" means

You're the one babbling about Arizona and Arizona isn't included in the case.
Quit arguing, you are wring and are going to keep being wrong ...

.

 

[bripat9643]

That isn't what Bush v. Gore ruled.

You totally misunderstand or misinterpret G v B. It used equal protection as its "basis" and even there said that it should not be used as precedent (because it would invalidate every election held until we have a national statute on elections)

But then you are stupid and dishonest so...

Dragonlady said the SC ruled that Florida couldn't change their election law at the last minute. I rightly pointed out that she's full of shit. Now you're saying she claimed something different.

You're also full of shit.

 

[Lesh]

Arizona isn't listed as a State in suit.

It doesn't need to be stupid. That case set precedent

Then what: the election goes to Congress where each state has one vote.

Trumpers are praying to delay and fuck things up enough to force that (predetermined) remedy

 

[iceberg]

people really don't get it.

no one has to prove any specific instances of fraud. no one has to PROVE the states did something wrong. what the states did to scuttle their own election laws is all on the record. Its just now up to scotus to decide what to do about it.

all the dimestore lawyers in here aren't worth the dime in this case. just prattling on as if they're a judge or do this for a living between cleaning the fryer and scraping off the grill.

 

[BlackSand]

Secondary ... The dictates were not followed/enforced equally by all precincts within each State in question.
That violates the Equal Protection Under the Law in regards to the vote and Articles in the Election Rights Act.

Actually the 4th and 9th circuit are dealing with that right now. The original judgement was that there was an equal protection argument. But that was overturned because there is no legal remedy to equal protection violations.

Example, if one town has an average police or fire, or EMT response time twice that of the town next door. Can they sue for equal protection. Force their town to give them the same protection as the town next door?

The court used the legal maxim, where there is no remedy, there is no right. If the court can't fix it, you have no right to it.

And demanding the votes in every county in the country be handled equally is beyond what a court has jurisdiction to order.

The 4th and 9th Circuit court cannot overrule the Supreme Court.
Texas took the case to the Supreme Court and it doesn't matter what the 4th and 9th do.

They have every right to take the case to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court can decide to hear it.
It's also not a demand that every Precinct be handled in the same manner ... It's the law ...

.

 

[Lesh]

You're the one babbling about Arizona and Arizona isn't included in the case.
Quit arguing, you are wring and are going to keep being wrong

I'm "babbling" about a case from Arizona (listed above) that set precedent for what the SC considers "the Legislature" to be. If you are too stupid to understand that just stop talking