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

[Faun]

we keep breaking down authority when we don't like it but run screaming for their help when we're under attack. you act as if no one tried to stop the bullshit before the election.

not the case.

Actually in the Pennsylvania case, that's exactly what happened. Nobody objected to Act 77, for almost a year. With no objection to it's use during the states primary election.

Had there been an objection, the courts could not have used the doctrine of laches.

Even worse, they used the provisions from act 77 in the primaries and no one objected then.

Republicans literally waited until there was an election where they didn't like the results to try and change the results based on a law Republicans put into place to take away a victory from Democrats to give to Republicans.

Why would Republicans object to a primarty that didn't affect them? That's a bogus argument, just like all your other arguments.

LOLOLOLOL

You're such a ******* moron, you don't even realize you just propped up my point in a 24K golden frame.



******* moron, if it was unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if it's Democrats or Republicans. If it was unconstitutional, it would have been unconstitutional for all political parties.

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.

Who said it wasn't unconstitutional for all political parties? It was just as unconstitutional then as it is now. The only difference is that republicans didn't file suit then. There's no requirement to file such a suit at a specific time, moron. Your objection is that it should be ruled constitutional because Republicans didn't care if the DNC fucked its own constituents. That's not a legitimate basis for throwing a lawsuit out, you ******* dumbass.

******* moron, I already recommended you Google doctrine of laches. Had you educated yourself you wouldn't have posted that ******* moronic post.

 

[Faun]

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

What federal election law?

 

[colfax_m]

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.

The lawsuit is self contradictory. The electors have been chosen by the states and the law states these are to be considered final as of last Tuesday.

 

[bottlecap]

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.

Not the "Will of the People" but the will of the GLOBALIST Billionaires.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/02/tech-billionaire-2020-election-donations-final-tally.html

About 98% of political contributions from internet companies this cycle went to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The CEOs of Asana, Twilio and Netflix were among the biggest contributors, and they all targeted Democratic groups and candidates.

Super PACs focused on flipping the Senate in favor of Democrats and winning in swing states received millions of dollars from tech execs.
-----------------
Add to that the following TRUMP HATERS; ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, most other newspapers and periodicals, college professors and Hollywood AND is it any wonder that many people did not vote for TRUMP.

Nevertheless, the Democrats still had to run a corrupt election to squeak out an advantage.

 

[Faun]

What federal election law?

3 USC 5 and 7

No one is trying to change it, moron.

 

[Faun]

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.

 

[Faun]

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.

That one is the biggest ******* moron on the planet.

 

[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.

Not the "Will of the People" but the will of the GLOBALIST Billionaires.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/02/tech-billionaire-2020-election-donations-final-tally.html

About 98% of political contributions from internet companies this cycle went to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The CEOs of Asana, Twilio and Netflix were among the biggest contributors, and they all targeted Democratic groups and candidates.

Super PACs focused on flipping the Senate in favor of Democrats and winning in swing states received millions of dollars from tech execs.
-----------------
Add to that the following TRUMP HATERS; ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, most other newspapers and periodicals, college professors and Hollywood AND is it any wonder that many people did not vote for TRUMP.

Nevertheless, the Democrats still had to run a corrupt election to squeak out an advantage.

Uh, no, people vote; dollars do not.

 

[bripat9643]

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, ******* moron. You should know that since today is only the 10th.

Where did I say it did extend the date. How could GA possibly extend the safe harbor date? GA did change its election laws, however. Rather, that spineless cuck governor and the douchebag SOS did.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That one is the biggest ******* moron on the planet.

ROFL! Your hatred for me only shows that you fear me.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I knew you couldn't quote anything.

 

[bripat9643]

What federal election law?

3 USC 5 and 7

No one is trying to change it, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

we keep breaking down authority when we don't like it but run screaming for their help when we're under attack. you act as if no one tried to stop the bullshit before the election.

not the case.

Actually in the Pennsylvania case, that's exactly what happened. Nobody objected to Act 77, for almost a year. With no objection to it's use during the states primary election.

Had there been an objection, the courts could not have used the doctrine of laches.

Even worse, they used the provisions from act 77 in the primaries and no one objected then.

Republicans literally waited until there was an election where they didn't like the results to try and change the results based on a law Republicans put into place to take away a victory from Democrats to give to Republicans.

Why would Republicans object to a primarty that didn't affect them? That's a bogus argument, just like all your other arguments.

LOLOLOLOL

You're such a ******* moron, you don't even realize you just propped up my point in a 24K golden frame.



******* moron, if it was unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if it's Democrats or Republicans. If it was unconstitutional, it would have been unconstitutional for all political parties.

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.

Who said it wasn't unconstitutional for all political parties? It was just as unconstitutional then as it is now. The only difference is that republicans didn't file suit then. There's no requirement to file such a suit at a specific time, moron. Your objection is that it should be ruled constitutional because Republicans didn't care if the DNC fucked its own constituents. That's not a legitimate basis for throwing a lawsuit out, you ******* dumbass.

******* moron, I already recommended you Google doctrine of laches. Had you educated yourself you wouldn't have posted that ******* moronic post.

In other words, you can't answer the question.

 

[mascale]

The 3:00 p.m., 12/10, hour is already history--as is customary, even several minutes way after. In fact, failure at "Timely Filing" is just one of many noted reasons the Defendants oppose granting any leave to present a case. "The District," where the court is located: Filed amicus curare on behalf of 22 jurisdictions--as in, "The Really Big Ones!" Each of the four states filed its own responses. Some Republicans filed as amici, as did 17 Republican states, and various friendly and unfriendly(?) other amici..

So effectively: It is too complex already, and notably Texas waited until after a month to file. Now, for the silence, or maybe even an English sentence denial. (Texas claimed to be filing on its behalf and others--the others not identified, possibly Martians, Venezuelans, computer Technicians, and maybe the Senator Ted Cruz family, from an "Undisclosed Location."

In the link, Michigan went into extensive detail, a lot from just in Michigan, alone!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163387/20201210145404465_22O155%20Texas%20MI%20BIO%2012-10.pdf

"Crow James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Matt 20: 1-16, provides that like a Stimulus Program: Then each payment amount is equal, regardless if the beneficiary had worked all the year or not, got laid off due to the plague, spent their summer vacations all in quarantine: Or stayed sober, starting in . . .anytime at all!)

 

[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.

That one is the biggest ******* moron on the planet.

ROFL! Your hatred for me only shows that you fear me.

Did you happen to look up that little part of the constitution that you think doesn't exist? And did you happen to refer back to the part of the lawsuit that asks SCOTUS to rewrite the law?

 

[jillian]

The the 3:00 p.m., 12/10, hour is already history--as is customary, even several minutes way after. In fact, failure at "Timely Filing" is just one of many noted reasons the Defendants oppose granting any leave to present a case. "The District," where the court is located: Filed amicus curare on behalf of 22 jurisdictions--as in, "The Really Big Ones!" Each of the four states filed its own responses. Some Republicans filed as amici, as did 17 Republican states, and various friendly and unfriendly(?) other amici..

So effectively: It is too complex already, and notably Texas under until after a month to file. Now, for the silence, or maybe even an English sentence denial. (Texas claimed to be filing on its behalf and others--the others not identified, possibly Martians, Venezuelans, computer Technicians, and maybe the Senator Ted Cruz family, from an "Undisclosed Location."

In the link, Michigan went into extensive detail, a lot from just in Michigan, alone!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163387/20201210145404465_22O155%20Texas%20MI%20BIO%2012-10.pdf

"Crow James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Matt 20: 1-16, provides that like a Stimulus Program: Then each payment amount is equal, regardless if the beneficiary had worked all the year or not, got laid off due to the plague, spent their summer vacations all in quarantine: Or stayed sober, starting in . . .anytime at all!)

You know the court isn’t going to take this a insane case, right?

 

[protectionist]

You know the court isn’t going to take this a insane case, right?

They have to, or else they wouldn't be upholding the US Constitution, which is the crux of the case. If they don't take this case, they don't exist.

 

[busybee01]

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.

The Hilbilly states of America.

The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.

There is a trend. Biden won Georgia because of the suburban vote which voted for a Republican governor just 6 years ago. It will only get worse as rural states lose voters while the suburbs gain voters. The states that went to Trump are at the bottom in education. The red states are hillbillies.

 

[busybee01]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! **** 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

They have no standing to sue because how other states comduct their elections are none of their business. Even Texas REPUBLICAN senator Cornyn has said that. Nothing has been done illegally.

 

[busybee01]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! **** 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.

By federal judges as well. Some were even appointed by Trump.