CDZ The Supreme Court rejects the GOP's effort to halt Biden's win in PA

Rye Catcher

Platinum Member
Nov 21, 2019
12,780
7,607
940

Even without PA's 20 EC Votes Biden was elected and trump will have lost. It's time for the GOP to speak the truth to power, and convince President Trump to stop and accept the election.
 

Even without PA's 20 EC Votes Biden was elected and trump will have lost. It's time for the GOP to speak the truth to power, and convince President Trump to stop and accept the election.
The good news is that the system works. Trump is just making a spectacle of himself but that will be soon forgotten.
 
Was worried, knew that Trumps goal was too get the election to the Supreme court. Because the court now leans harder to the right. Was afraid if they helped him by subverting the constitution, then trust in the highest court would take us farther down the money & dishonesty rules road. They did the right thing, for this I am grateful.
 
Was worried, knew that Trumps goal was too get the election to the Supreme court. Because the court now leans harder to the right. Was afraid if they helped him by subverting the constitution, then trust in the highest court would take us farther down the money & dishonesty rules road. They did the right thing, for this I am grateful.
It's almost certainly because the Scotus could provide no remedy. There's good reason to suggest they erred in deciding that Texas had no standing.

Texas having no standing is the equivalent of saying that Texas has no right to demand legal practices in other states when those malpractices can influence Texas.

The US Constitution can't answer to that and so it is fatally flawed at present. The two dissenting opinons from the Scotus actually said that in a way that was cautious enough to not cause more waves.

This question will surely be revisited again when the remedy isn't needing to be the overturning of an entire election.

That's not speaking to political bias, that's just the facts.
 

Even without PA's 20 EC Votes Biden was elected and trump will have lost. It's time for the GOP to speak the truth to power, and convince President Trump to stop and accept the election.
 
Q. What is "the truth" and who is the "power?

A. Trump is the power, and the truth is he has lost the election and most of his subordinates are afraid of him, and don't want to tell him he lost.
No doubt that's a big part of their ongoing support for Trump, but it seems like there's more to it than just that. The tea party types most likely truly believe in what they're doing. There's gain in it for them and there's strong leadership with Trump going forward.

Remember, Trump is not the problem with America, he's just a symptom. And he was elected to solve the problem. There's no way of any American being able to hide the fact that the ordinary American is suffering much, much more than others living in the world's leading democracies.

That remains unspeakable due to patriotism and pride. Just be aware that we're not buying.

best wishes from Canada.
 
It's almost certainly because the Scotus could provide no remedy. There's good reason to suggest they erred in deciding that Texas had no standing.

Texas having no standing is the equivalent of saying that Texas has no right to demand legal practices in other states when those malpractices can influence Texas.

But that's the reality of having State's Rights. States have their own sovereignty. Texas might no like how Pennsylvania conducts it's elections, but it's really none of their business.


The US Constitution can't answer to that and so it is fatally flawed at present. The two dissenting opinons from the Scotus actually said that in a way that was cautious enough to not cause more waves.

The constitution does have a solution, and that is passing federal laws before the election. Sometimes it's as simple as the Voting Rights Act of 1964, sometimes it requires a constitutional amendment.


This question will surely be revisited again when the remedy isn't needing to be the overturning of an entire election.

That's not speaking to political bias, that's just the facts.

Will it? This issue was already addressed when two states sued Colorado over legalizing weed. The court ruled 7-2 that the other states didn't have standing to challenge CO's laws.

What this whole fiasco shows is why the Electoral College is largely unworkable, in that you can take a fairly straight forward election where someone lost by 7 million votes and confuse the issue for weeks with threats to have state legislatures, courts, faithless electors and Congress challenge the results.
 

Even without PA's 20 EC Votes Biden was elected and trump will have lost. It's time for the GOP to speak the truth to power, and convince President Trump to stop and accept the election.
That's because the Supreme Court is no different than any other branch of the government. Criminal as hell and there to see what they can get. I though everyone would knew that since they found the 'Affordable' Care Act legal
 
Nothing to big or 2 small to attack, Hate rules. Kind of sad as most prepare for the virus altered holiday season of peace love & joy.
 
But that's the reality of having State's Rights. States have their own sovereignty. Texas might no like how Pennsylvania conducts it's elections, but it's really none of their business.

Hold on joe, this can be discussed calmly and in a rational way. One state's rights have to be compatible with all of the other states' rights. If I have to provide you with examples of how that is true then there's noting to gain by discussing the issue with you. You have to understand that and provide examples of that in order to show you're interested in the discussion.
The constitution does have a solution, and that is passing federal laws before the election. Sometimes it's as simple as the Voting Rights Act of 1964, sometimes it requires a constitutional amendment.

Yes! And I'm saying that if that's not done before an election then the Constitution is fatally flawed. Do you wish to interpret it some other way? Please do so.

Will it? This issue was already addressed when two states sued Colorado over legalizing weed. The court ruled 7-2 that the other states didn't have standing to challenge CO's laws.

And maybe rightfully so? It sounds like the court decided that Colorado's legalizing weed wasn't considered to unduly effect those other states in a negative way, that would give them standing. Each separate issue needs to be decided on it's merits/demerits.

What this whole fiasco shows is why the Electoral College is largely unworkable, in that you can take a fairly straight forward election where someone lost by 7 million votes and confuse the issue for weeks with threats to have state legislatures, courts, faithless electors and Congress challenge the results.

I agree with most of that but it's not speaking to the issue. It's cumbersome and unnecessary but could likely be amended to be able to work fairly if it addressed population sizes. Why bother? Or on the other hand, maybe it can't be fixed. Is the union fatally flawed?

If you can't think of an example in which Texas would have standing that would allow it to take an issue to the Scotus, then ask and I'll provide one. But I really think that you understand that it's true when you mentioned that there is federal responsibility involved in which the rights of individual states have to take a back seat to federal law concerning elections that have an effect on the entire country.

I have no interest in arguing for either side on this. That's not the point.
 
Was worried, knew that Trumps goal was too get the election to the Supreme court. Because the court now leans harder to the right. Was afraid if they helped him by subverting the constitution, then trust in the highest court would take us farther down the money & dishonesty rules road. They did the right thing, for this I am grateful.
It's almost certainly because the Scotus could provide no remedy. There's good reason to suggest they erred in deciding that Texas had no standing.

Texas having no standing is the equivalent of saying that Texas has no right to demand legal practices in other states when those malpractices can influence Texas.

The US Constitution can't answer to that and so it is fatally flawed at present. The two dissenting opinons from the Scotus actually said that in a way that was cautious enough to not cause more waves.

This question will surely be revisited again when the remedy isn't needing to be the overturning of an entire election.

That's not speaking to political bias, that's just the facts.



So you're saying that my state can sue Texas because my state doesn't like the fact that Texas illegally changed their voting laws this year.

Texas is accusing those 4 states of doing the same thing Texas did this year.

And you're also saying that my state can sue Texas for their weapons laws or their laws against abortion. Or any other law that Texas has that my state doesn't like.

That case would open up a can of worms that should never be opened.

The constitution does address this in two ways. It gives the individual states the power to run their own elections. It also gives states rights.

So if Texas is going to change their election laws without going through their state legislature like they did this year, they really shouldn't be going to the Supreme Court asking the court to overturn the election in 4 other states that changed their election laws the same way.

No state should be able to get the Supreme Court to overturn an election in a different state.

Many other states changed their election laws this year because of the virus and did it the same way Texas and those 4 other states did it. Why didn't Texas include all the states that changed their election laws the same way? Why just those 4 states?

If there is a crime or problem in a state with their election, it's that specific state's obligation to address it. Not a totally different state.
 
So you're saying that my state can sue Texas because my state doesn't like the fact that Texas illegally changed their voting laws this year.

No, not exactly. The concept of ensuring that every state conduct honest and legal elections isn't a difficult one to understand. So for that reason I won't explain again unless you can demonstrate that you are sincere.

Texas is accusing those 4 states of doing the same thing Texas did this year.

Neither is it a difficult concept to understand that illegal and dishonest practices in one state, makes it o.k. for all states.

And you're also saying that my state can sue Texas for their weapons laws or their laws against abortion. Or any other law that Texas has that my state doesn't like.

You lose me when you start to go off.

That case would open up a can of worms that should never be opened.

What case? Can you relate to the reality of the situation?

The constitution does address this in two ways. It gives the individual states the power to run their own elections. It also gives states rights.

Those aren't the questions at issue.

So if Texas is going to change their election laws without going through their state legislature like they did this year, they really shouldn't be going to the Supreme Court asking the court to overturn the election in 4 other states that changed their election laws the same way.

Texas shouldn't but you've skirted the issue again. And that's not to suggest you wouldn't be right in saying that other states recourse too.

No state should be able to get the Supreme Court to overturn an election in a different state.

The wording you've used doesn't apply here.

Many other states changed their election laws this year because of the virus and did it the same way Texas and those 4 other states did it. Why didn't Texas include all the states that changed their election laws the same way? Why just those 4 states?

Good question! It's because Texas had a dishonest motive of course and wasn't concerned with changing the vote in states that Trump won.

If there is a crime or problem in a state with their election, it's that specific state's obligation to address it.

That would be true

Not a totally different state.

That doesn't apply to what I've been saying. So I'll make it short and brief.

If another state commits a crime that effects your state then your state must have recourse for correcting the wrong. The only recourse is the Scotus.

It's purposely brief because it's asking for everybody to take the issue seriously. I really don't have the time to cater to purposeful ignorance. show some sincerity and i'll elaborate further.
 

Forum List

Back
Top