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

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The SCOTUS is going to throw out every ballot that did not meet the state's election laws & standards.

They may even order new elections, or a forensic evaluation of the 4 states ballots.

Stop doing this to yourself.

 

[bripat9643]

The lawsuit says the SOS or the governor cannot unilaterally change GA election law, moron. It doesn't say GA can't change its election law.

The lawsuit asks the SCOTUS to unilaterally change federal election law. Ironic, isn't it?

What federal election law?

3 USC 5 and 7

No one is trying to change it, moron.

From their lawsuit:

To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed. Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

That rule was created by the federal government. The Constitution refers only to state election law, moron

 

[colfax_m]

That rule was created by the federal government. The Constitution refers only to state election law, moron

The Constitution definitely does not only refer to state election laws.

Can SCOTUS write new laws?

 

[The Original Tree]

The SCOTUS is going to throw out every ballot that did not meet the state's election laws & standards.

They may even order new elections, or a forensic evaluation of the 4 states ballots.

Stop doing this to yourself.

Stop trying to put criminals in The White House through Fraudulent, Invalid and Illegal Elections. Start putting your crooked politicians in jail and restore faith in our elections.

Voter ID is a start.

 

[Flash]

The Supreme Court has a chance to save our Country from the greatest Election abuse in the history of the United States. 78% of the people feel (know!) the Election was RIGGED.

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 10, 2020

 

[bripat9643]

That rule was created by the federal government. The Constitution refers only to state election law, moron

The Constitution definitely does not only refer to state election laws.

Can SCOTUS write new laws?

When it refers to election laws, it refers only to state election laws. Please quote anywhere it does otherwise. All elections in this country are run by states.

 

[colfax_m]

When it refers to election laws, it refers only to state election laws. Please quote anywhere it does otherwise. All elections in this country are run by states.

Article 2, section 1, Clause 4

Look it up. Tell me what it says.

 

[bottlecap]

The lawsuit says the SOS or the governor cannot unilaterally change GA election law, moron. It doesn't say GA can't change its election law.

The lawsuit asks the SCOTUS to unilaterally change federal election law. Ironic, isn't it?

No, just the opposite. They are asking the Supreme Court to enforce the US Constitution.

Congress Has Affirmed State Legislatures’ Unilateral Authority to Void Elections at Midnight after Election Day - The Post & Email

"While the United States Supreme Court – in an 8-0 decision (See Chiafolo v. Washington, 591 U.S. ___, decided July 6, 2020) – reaffirmed a longstanding judicially recognized principle, that Article 2;§1 of the Constitution grants plenary authority to the Legislatures of each State to determine the manner of appointing presidential electors,
===================
So the Legislatures of each State set the rules for determining the electors.

Almost all states, including of course Georgia have established that their electors are given to the candidate with the most votes.

But also included is the power of the Legislatures to set the parameters of the voting procedures. What Sec. of State Brad Raffensperger has done was change voting laws while bypassing the state legislatures.

By entering into a "Consent Decree with the Democratic Party is a direct violation of the US Constitution.

 

[colfax_m]

No, just the opposite. They are asking the Supreme Court to enforce the US Constitution.

You should have read the lawsuit where they say this:
To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed.

That deadline is determined by Congress. There is nowhere in the constitution that it grants the courts to make unilateral changes.

The case is asking the court to do exactly what it is asking the court to forbid.

 

[BlindBoo]

What Sec. of State Brad Raffensperger has done was change voting laws

What laws are they claiming were changed?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You were making sense, all the way up to:
and hence, Texas is
threatened and their voters disenfranchised also.

Your claim that California votes "disenfranchise" texas votes is ridiculous. You're just pointing out that a state with millions more people, gets more votes.

In any national election a state like California threatens and disenfranchises everyone else the way
fat person puts everyone else at danger when jumping into a kiddie pool.
California only gives the impression that they are only letting legal voters vote.

 

[iceberg]

That rule was created by the federal government. The Constitution refers only to state election law, moron

The Constitution definitely does not only refer to state election laws.

Can SCOTUS write new laws?

seems to be what's going around. people outside of the legislative branch have been creating and altering laws.

kinda why we're here isn't it?

 

[colfax_m]

seems to be what's going around. people outside of the legislative branch have been creating and altering laws.

kinda why we're here isn't it?

Funny how the people who are suing about that issue are simultaneously, and in the same lawsuit, asking the courts to do the exact same thing.

The lawsuit is self contradictory.

 

[bottlecap]

US CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE II Section 1

[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.

[4] The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It looks like the State Legislators get to determine the rules for someone becoming an elector, while the US Congress tells the States what date their electors must make their votes publicly known.

 

[Faun]

Here you are, accentuating my point that Republicans waited until there was an election which they lost to raise this issue -- which, by the way, was one of the reason Republicans lost this case. You can't sit on a lawsuit until it's politically expedient. Google doctrine of laches to get educated.

That's one of the many problems with this lawsuit, and many others.

They're not concerned about the law. If they were, they would have challenged it in court long before the election. But they didn't.

That's correct. They held on to it, knowing a day would come when they would lose an election that they could then play that card, hoping to reverse the will of the people.

 

[bottlecap]

No, just the opposite. They are asking the Supreme Court to enforce the US Constitution.

You should have read the lawsuit where they say this:
To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed.

That deadline is determined by Congress. There is nowhere in the constitution that it grants the courts to make unilateral changes.

The case is asking the court to do exactly what it is asking the court to forbid.

I have to agree with you on that point...the date for the vote state electors vote is set by Congress and the Supreme Court can not change that in my view.

 

[sartre play]

Waiting for the fat lady to sing.

 

[Faun]

He has a point. The liberal states should sue states like Texas for voter suppression. That effectively increases the voting power of the individual Texan, beyond the voting power of individual people in other states.

Conservatives should cheer.

I don't think so. If fact if anything it's California that suppresses the voting rights of it's citizens
through motor voter laws and illegal immigrants voting nullifying votes of lawful citizens and hence, Texas is
threatened and their voters disenfranchised also.

Voter nullification and suppression is precisely why California tries to open up it's elections to as many
non citizens as possible. It's a rat's nest of corruption.
Of course they never admit that's that they do. They just make it so easy for everyone to vote in California.
And they make NO effort to stop anyone.
But thanks for dropping by.

Motor voter laws were enacted because of a federal mandate. It affects not just California but all states.

 

[BlindBoo]

It looks like the State Legislators get to determine the rules for someone becoming an elector

They got to. They legally bound the selection to the popular vote in the States election. Delegating the authority to the People and the States elections process.

 

[Faun]

The complaint itself is hypocritical. It complains that state courts can't change laws governing elections but simultaneously asks the SCOTUS to suspend laws governing safe harbor and the meeting of the electoral college.

Courts are not supposed to change laws. That is a function of the legislature.

Only commie marxist globalists want to rule a nation through the courts, just like they did in Nazi Germany for illegitimate Hitler. Joe Biden is illegitimate and is a Senile Puppet of China, Big Tech, and Russia, The UN and should not be allowed within 200 yards of The White House ever.

LOLOL

Stumpy, the Texas lawsuit is asking for the SCOTUS to extend the Dec. 14 deadline for certification of presidential electors, i.e., change the law. Which they can't do.

Glad to see even you think this lawsuit is bogus, even if you still don't know why you think that.

If GA can do it, then why can't SCOTUS?

Georgia didn't extend that date, fucking moron. You should know that since today is only the 10th.