Was our S.C. delinquent in its duty to adjudicate the Texas 2020 election lawsuit?

johnwk

Gold Member
May 24, 2009
4,152
1,970
200
.

In response to the State of Texas filing a Motion for leave to File a BILL OF COMPLAINT in which twenty other States joined, our Supreme Court issued the following ORDER dated, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020.

As you can see, the Order offers no legal reasoning to substantiate Texas does not have standing, nor does the ORDER explain why the Court alleges Texas ". . . has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections."

On the other hand, the Texas Motion for leave does assert election activities within the Defendant States, which were embraced and condoned by State Government Officials, were in violation of “. . . one or more of the federal requirements for elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and the Electors Clause) and thus arise under federal law. See Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) (“significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question”) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). Plaintiff State respectfully submits that the foregoing types of electoral irregularities exceed the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election in their degree of departure from both state and federal law. Moreover, these flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections.”

Additionally, the Texas Bill of Complaint does in fact raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the Defendant States conducted their elections as follows:

"This case presents a question of law: Did Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by taking—or allowing—non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? 3. Those unconstitutional changes opened the door to election irregularities in various forms. Plaintiff State alleges that each of the Defendant States flagrantly violated constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors. In doing so, seeds of deep distrust have been sown across the country. In the spirit of Marbury v. Madison, this Court’s attention is profoundly needed to declare what the law is and to restore public trust in this election. 4. As Justice Gorsuch observed recently, “Government is not free to disregard the [Constitution] in times of crisis. … Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). This case is no different "


In response to the claims made in the Texas lawsuit, and the evidence presented, our Supreme Court refused to hear the case, listen to sworn witnesses, and examine the evidence which establishes our federal election process in the Defendant States has been corrupted to such a degree that the election outcome cannot justly be accepted as being legitimate.

The question here is, what is the rational and legal reasoning of our Supreme Court to assert Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?

Keep in mind what our very own Supreme Court has emphatically pointed out in the past. When acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state "they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".


And in "McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1 (1892), the Court explained that Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, "convey the broadest power of determination" and "leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method" of appointment. 146 U. S., at 27. A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question."

Additionally, and with respect to the Robert's Court obvious dereliction of duty to hear the Texas Lawsuit, this dereliction of duty was eloquently summed up in an amicus curiae brief by Citizen’s United:

"When one state allows the Manner in which Presidential Electors be chosen to be determined by anyone other than the state legislature, that state acts in breach of the presuppositions on which the Union is based. Each state is not isolated from the rest—rather, all states are interdependent. Our nation’s operational principle is E pluribus unum. Each state has a duty to other states to abide by this and other reciprocal obligations built into Constitution. While defendant states may view this suit as an infringement of its sovereignty, it is not, as the defendant states surrendered their sovereignty when they agreed to abide by Article II, § 1. Each state depends on other states to adhere to minimum constitutional standards in areas where it ceded its sovereignty to the union—and if those standards are not met, then the responsibility to enforce those standards falls to this Court."

It seems more that apparent that the Roberts' Court failed in its duty to hear a case, so critical in nature, that its refusal to adjudicate the case gives legitimacy to Trump's claims, and perhaps seventy-three million voters, that illegal voter activities in the Defendant States leaves a dark and threatening cloud over the legitimacy of Biden's election.

So, the unanswered question is, what is the rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?

JWK

“Until you realize how easy it is for your mind to be manipulated, you remain the puppet of someone else’s game.” ― Evita Ochel



JWK
 
Not at all since one state can't sue another state over a legislative approved procedure such as voting rules. They may sue over corporate issues or border issues.

The Eleventh Amendment’s text prohibits the federal courts from hearing certain lawsuits against states. The Amendment has also been interpreted to mean that state courts do not have to hear certain suits against the state, if those suits are based on federal law.
 
Last edited:
Citizens United is a PAC that feels it is okay to have dark money donations from foreign sources.

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.
 
Not at all since one state can't sue another state over a legislative approved procedure such as voting rules.


As explained in the OP, our very own Supreme Court has emphatically pointed out in the past. When acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state "they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".


And in "McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1 (1892), the Court explained that Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, "convey the broadest power of determination" and "leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method" of appointment. 146 U. S., at 27. A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question."

Additionally, and with respect to the Robert's Court obvious dereliction of duty to hear the Texas Lawsuit, this dereliction of duty was eloquently summed up in an amicus curiae brief by Citizen’s United:

"When one state allows the Manner in which Presidential Electors be chosen to be determined by anyone other than the state legislature, that state acts in breach of the presuppositions on which the Union is based. Each state is not isolated from the rest—rather, all states are interdependent. Our nation’s operational principle is E pluribus unum. Each state has a duty to other states to abide by this and other reciprocal obligations built into Constitution. While defendant states may view this suit as an infringement of its sovereignty, it is not, as the defendant states surrendered their sovereignty when they agreed to abide by Article II, § 1. Each state depends on other states to adhere to minimum constitutional standards in areas where it ceded its sovereignty to the union—and if those standards are not met, then the responsibility to enforce those standards falls to this Court."


So, the unanswered question is, what is the rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?

JWK
 
There was not a case of corruption it was a case of how one legislative body made voting rules that other states did not like. The Constitution allows states to make their own laws on voting and elections.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators

for presidential elections:

Although the Constitution is silent on various aspects of the voting process, it seems to anticipate that states would be primarily responsible for establishing election procedures. Federal authority to regulate federal elections, however, is specifically provided for in the Constitution. There are two main provisions at issue—Article I, Section 4, cl. 1, which provides Congress the authority to set the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections, and Article II, Section 1, cl. 4, which provides that Congress may designate the “Time” for the choosing of Presidential Electors.
 
Last edited:
.

In response to the State of Texas filing a Motion for leave to File a BILL OF COMPLAINT in which twenty other States joined, our Supreme Court issued the following ORDER dated, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020.

As you can see, the Order offers no legal reasoning to substantiate Texas does not have standing, nor does the ORDER explain why the Court alleges Texas ". . . has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections."

On the other hand, the Texas Motion for leave does assert election activities within the Defendant States, which were embraced and condoned by State Government Officials, were in violation of “. . . one or more of the federal requirements for elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and the Electors Clause) and thus arise under federal law. See Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) (“significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question”) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). Plaintiff State respectfully submits that the foregoing types of electoral irregularities exceed the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election in their degree of departure from both state and federal law. Moreover, these flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections.”

Additionally, the Texas Bill of Complaint does in fact raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the Defendant States conducted their elections as follows:

"This case presents a question of law: Did Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by taking—or allowing—non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? 3. Those unconstitutional changes opened the door to election irregularities in various forms. Plaintiff State alleges that each of the Defendant States flagrantly violated constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors. In doing so, seeds of deep distrust have been sown across the country. In the spirit of Marbury v. Madison, this Court’s attention is profoundly needed to declare what the law is and to restore public trust in this election. 4. As Justice Gorsuch observed recently, “Government is not free to disregard the [Constitution] in times of crisis. … Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). This case is no different "


In response to the claims made in the Texas lawsuit, and the evidence presented, our Supreme Court refused to hear the case, listen to sworn witnesses, and examine the evidence which establishes our federal election process in the Defendant States has been corrupted to such a degree that the election outcome cannot justly be accepted as being legitimate.

The question here is, what is the rational and legal reasoning of our Supreme Court to assert Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?

Keep in mind what our very own Supreme Court has emphatically pointed out in the past. When acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state "they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".


And in "McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1 (1892), the Court explained that Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, "convey the broadest power of determination" and "leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method" of appointment. 146 U. S., at 27. A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question."

Additionally, and with respect to the Robert's Court obvious dereliction of duty to hear the Texas Lawsuit, this dereliction of duty was eloquently summed up in an amicus curiae brief by Citizen’s United:

"When one state allows the Manner in which Presidential Electors be chosen to be determined by anyone other than the state legislature, that state acts in breach of the presuppositions on which the Union is based. Each state is not isolated from the rest—rather, all states are interdependent. Our nation’s operational principle is E pluribus unum. Each state has a duty to other states to abide by this and other reciprocal obligations built into Constitution. While defendant states may view this suit as an infringement of its sovereignty, it is not, as the defendant states surrendered their sovereignty when they agreed to abide by Article II, § 1. Each state depends on other states to adhere to minimum constitutional standards in areas where it ceded its sovereignty to the union—and if those standards are not met, then the responsibility to enforce those standards falls to this Court."

It seems more that apparent that the Roberts' Court failed in its duty to hear a case, so critical in nature, that its refusal to adjudicate the case gives legitimacy to Trump's claims, and perhaps seventy-three million voters, that illegal voter activities in the Defendant States leaves a dark and threatening cloud over the legitimacy of Biden's election.

So, the unanswered question is, what is the rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?

JWK

“Until you realize how easy it is for your mind to be manipulated, you remain the puppet of someone else’s game.” ― Evita Ochel



JWK
The answer is that one state can't sue another state for how it ran its election. Especially under the guise that the defendant states violated their constitution while, at the same time, Texas was violating its.
 
.

In response to the State of Texas filing a Motion for leave to File a BILL OF COMPLAINT in which twenty other States joined, our Supreme Court issued the following ORDER dated, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020.

As you can see, the Order offers no legal reasoning to substantiate Texas does not have standing, nor does the ORDER explain why the Court alleges Texas ". . . has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections."

On the other hand, the Texas Motion for leave does assert election activities within the Defendant States, which were embraced and condoned by State Government Officials, were in violation of “. . . one or more of the federal requirements for elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and the Electors Clause) and thus arise under federal law. See Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) (“significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question”) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). Plaintiff State respectfully submits that the foregoing types of electoral irregularities exceed the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election in their degree of departure from both state and federal law. Moreover, these flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections.”

Additionally, the Texas Bill of Complaint does in fact raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the Defendant States conducted their elections as follows:

"This case presents a question of law: Did Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by taking—or allowing—non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? 3. Those unconstitutional changes opened the door to election irregularities in various forms. Plaintiff State alleges that each of the Defendant States flagrantly violated constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors. In doing so, seeds of deep distrust have been sown across the country. In the spirit of Marbury v. Madison, this Court’s attention is profoundly needed to declare what the law is and to restore public trust in this election. 4. As Justice Gorsuch observed recently, “Government is not free to disregard the [Constitution] in times of crisis. … Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). This case is no different "


In response to the claims made in the Texas lawsuit, and the evidence presented, our Supreme Court refused to hear the case, listen to sworn witnesses, and examine the evidence which establishes our federal election process in the Defendant States has been corrupted to such a degree that the election outcome cannot justly be accepted as being legitimate.

The question here is, what is the rational and legal reasoning of our Supreme Court to assert Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?

Keep in mind what our very own Supreme Court has emphatically pointed out in the past. When acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state "they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".


And in "McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1 (1892), the Court explained that Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, "convey the broadest power of determination" and "leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method" of appointment. 146 U. S., at 27. A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question."

Additionally, and with respect to the Robert's Court obvious dereliction of duty to hear the Texas Lawsuit, this dereliction of duty was eloquently summed up in an amicus curiae brief by Citizen’s United:

"When one state allows the Manner in which Presidential Electors be chosen to be determined by anyone other than the state legislature, that state acts in breach of the presuppositions on which the Union is based. Each state is not isolated from the rest—rather, all states are interdependent. Our nation’s operational principle is E pluribus unum. Each state has a duty to other states to abide by this and other reciprocal obligations built into Constitution. While defendant states may view this suit as an infringement of its sovereignty, it is not, as the defendant states surrendered their sovereignty when they agreed to abide by Article II, § 1. Each state depends on other states to adhere to minimum constitutional standards in areas where it ceded its sovereignty to the union—and if those standards are not met, then the responsibility to enforce those standards falls to this Court."

It seems more that apparent that the Roberts' Court failed in its duty to hear a case, so critical in nature, that its refusal to adjudicate the case gives legitimacy to Trump's claims, and perhaps seventy-three million voters, that illegal voter activities in the Defendant States leaves a dark and threatening cloud over the legitimacy of Biden's election.

So, the unanswered question is, what is the rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?

JWK

“Until you realize how easy it is for your mind to be manipulated, you remain the puppet of someone else’s game.” ― Evita Ochel



JWK

No. it was not "delinquent". Texas has NO FUCKING STANDING to tell other states how to run their elections, NOR is it in any position to analyze those states' operations EVEN IF IT DID.

YOU FUCKING LOST, LOSER. GROW A FUCKING PAIR AND FUCKING DEAL WITH IT.

Holy SHIT you crybabies are pathetic.
 
.

In response to the State of Texas filing a Motion for leave to File a BILL OF COMPLAINT in which twenty other States joined, our Supreme Court issued the following ORDER dated, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020.

As you can see, the Order offers no legal reasoning to substantiate Texas does not have standing, nor does the ORDER explain why the Court alleges Texas ". . . has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections."

On the other hand, the Texas Motion for leave does assert election activities within the Defendant States, which were embraced and condoned by State Government Officials, were in violation of “. . . one or more of the federal requirements for elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and the Electors Clause) and thus arise under federal law. See Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) (“significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question”) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). Plaintiff State respectfully submits that the foregoing types of electoral irregularities exceed the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election in their degree of departure from both state and federal law. Moreover, these flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections.”

Additionally, the Texas Bill of Complaint does in fact raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the Defendant States conducted their elections as follows:

"This case presents a question of law: Did Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by taking—or allowing—non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? 3. Those unconstitutional changes opened the door to election irregularities in various forms. Plaintiff State alleges that each of the Defendant States flagrantly violated constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors. In doing so, seeds of deep distrust have been sown across the country. In the spirit of Marbury v. Madison, this Court’s attention is profoundly needed to declare what the law is and to restore public trust in this election. 4. As Justice Gorsuch observed recently, “Government is not free to disregard the [Constitution] in times of crisis. … Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). This case is no different "


In response to the claims made in the Texas lawsuit, and the evidence presented, our Supreme Court refused to hear the case, listen to sworn witnesses, and examine the evidence which establishes our federal election process in the Defendant States has been corrupted to such a degree that the election outcome cannot justly be accepted as being legitimate.

The question here is, what is the rational and legal reasoning of our Supreme Court to assert Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?

Keep in mind what our very own Supreme Court has emphatically pointed out in the past. When acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state "they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".


And in "McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1 (1892), the Court explained that Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, "convey the broadest power of determination" and "leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method" of appointment. 146 U. S., at 27. A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question."

Additionally, and with respect to the Robert's Court obvious dereliction of duty to hear the Texas Lawsuit, this dereliction of duty was eloquently summed up in an amicus curiae brief by Citizen’s United:

"When one state allows the Manner in which Presidential Electors be chosen to be determined by anyone other than the state legislature, that state acts in breach of the presuppositions on which the Union is based. Each state is not isolated from the rest—rather, all states are interdependent. Our nation’s operational principle is E pluribus unum. Each state has a duty to other states to abide by this and other reciprocal obligations built into Constitution. While defendant states may view this suit as an infringement of its sovereignty, it is not, as the defendant states surrendered their sovereignty when they agreed to abide by Article II, § 1. Each state depends on other states to adhere to minimum constitutional standards in areas where it ceded its sovereignty to the union—and if those standards are not met, then the responsibility to enforce those standards falls to this Court."

It seems more that apparent that the Roberts' Court failed in its duty to hear a case, so critical in nature, that its refusal to adjudicate the case gives legitimacy to Trump's claims, and perhaps seventy-three million voters, that illegal voter activities in the Defendant States leaves a dark and threatening cloud over the legitimacy of Biden's election.

So, the unanswered question is, what is the rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?

JWK

“Until you realize how easy it is for your mind to be manipulated, you remain the puppet of someone else’s game.” ― Evita Ochel



JWK
The answer is that one state can't sue another state for how it ran its election. Especially under the guise that the defendant states violated their constitution while, at the same time, Texas was violating its.
Why can't they--------if GEORGIA cheated which it did, then my vote in florida is meaningless. I should have the right to sue.
 
There was not a case of corruption it was a case of how one legislative body made voting rules that other states did not like. The Constitution allows states to make their own laws on voting and elections.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators

for presidential elections:

Although the Constitution is silent on various aspects of the voting process, it seems to anticipate that states would be primarily responsible for establishing election procedures. Federal authority to regulate federal elections, however, is specifically provided for in the Constitution. There are two main provisions at issue—Article I, Section 4, cl. 1, which provides Congress the authority to set the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections, and Article II, Section 1, cl. 4, which provides that Congress may designate the “Time” for the choosing of Presidential Electors.



What Texas is doing is opening the door to is my state can sue Texas for not having the proper electric system for their state and not joining with the other 49 states on a national grid.

We could sue them for not properly regulating business, energy and environmental safety.

We could also sue them for their laws that violate a woman's right to privacy and her own body.

What Texas wants to do is take away the citizens of each state's right to vote and legislate in their own state.

The constitution gives each state the right to create their own laws within that state.

Texas wants to take that right from the states.
 
Last edited:
.

In response to the State of Texas filing a Motion for leave to File a BILL OF COMPLAINT in which twenty other States joined, our Supreme Court issued the following ORDER dated, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020.

As you can see, the Order offers no legal reasoning to substantiate Texas does not have standing, nor does the ORDER explain why the Court alleges Texas ". . . has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections."

On the other hand, the Texas Motion for leave does assert election activities within the Defendant States, which were embraced and condoned by State Government Officials, were in violation of “. . . one or more of the federal requirements for elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and the Electors Clause) and thus arise under federal law. See Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) (“significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question”) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). Plaintiff State respectfully submits that the foregoing types of electoral irregularities exceed the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election in their degree of departure from both state and federal law. Moreover, these flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections.”

Additionally, the Texas Bill of Complaint does in fact raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the Defendant States conducted their elections as follows:

"This case presents a question of law: Did Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by taking—or allowing—non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? 3. Those unconstitutional changes opened the door to election irregularities in various forms. Plaintiff State alleges that each of the Defendant States flagrantly violated constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors. In doing so, seeds of deep distrust have been sown across the country. In the spirit of Marbury v. Madison, this Court’s attention is profoundly needed to declare what the law is and to restore public trust in this election. 4. As Justice Gorsuch observed recently, “Government is not free to disregard the [Constitution] in times of crisis. … Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). This case is no different "


In response to the claims made in the Texas lawsuit, and the evidence presented, our Supreme Court refused to hear the case, listen to sworn witnesses, and examine the evidence which establishes our federal election process in the Defendant States has been corrupted to such a degree that the election outcome cannot justly be accepted as being legitimate.

The question here is, what is the rational and legal reasoning of our Supreme Court to assert Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?

Keep in mind what our very own Supreme Court has emphatically pointed out in the past. When acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state "they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".


And in "McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1 (1892), the Court explained that Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, "convey the broadest power of determination" and "leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method" of appointment. 146 U. S., at 27. A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question."

Additionally, and with respect to the Robert's Court obvious dereliction of duty to hear the Texas Lawsuit, this dereliction of duty was eloquently summed up in an amicus curiae brief by Citizen’s United:

"When one state allows the Manner in which Presidential Electors be chosen to be determined by anyone other than the state legislature, that state acts in breach of the presuppositions on which the Union is based. Each state is not isolated from the rest—rather, all states are interdependent. Our nation’s operational principle is E pluribus unum. Each state has a duty to other states to abide by this and other reciprocal obligations built into Constitution. While defendant states may view this suit as an infringement of its sovereignty, it is not, as the defendant states surrendered their sovereignty when they agreed to abide by Article II, § 1. Each state depends on other states to adhere to minimum constitutional standards in areas where it ceded its sovereignty to the union—and if those standards are not met, then the responsibility to enforce those standards falls to this Court."

It seems more that apparent that the Roberts' Court failed in its duty to hear a case, so critical in nature, that its refusal to adjudicate the case gives legitimacy to Trump's claims, and perhaps seventy-three million voters, that illegal voter activities in the Defendant States leaves a dark and threatening cloud over the legitimacy of Biden's election.

So, the unanswered question is, what is the rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?

JWK

“Until you realize how easy it is for your mind to be manipulated, you remain the puppet of someone else’s game.” ― Evita Ochel



JWK

Texas didn't have standing in 20 other states, stupid.
 
There was not a case of corruption it was a case of how one legislative body made voting rules that other states did not like. The Constitution allows states to make their own laws on voting and elections.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators

for presidential elections:

Although the Constitution is silent on various aspects of the voting process, it seems to anticipate that states would be primarily responsible for establishing election procedures. Federal authority to regulate federal elections, however, is specifically provided for in the Constitution. There are two main provisions at issue—Article I, Section 4, cl. 1, which provides Congress the authority to set the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections, and Article II, Section 1, cl. 4, which provides that Congress may designate the “Time” for the choosing of Presidential Electors.



What Texas is opening the door to is my state can sue Texas for not having the proper electric system for their state and not joining with the other 49 states on a national grid.

We could sue them for not properly regulating business, energy and environmental safety.

We could also sue them for their laws that violate a woman's right to privacy and her own body.

What Texas wants to do is take away the citizens of each state's right to vote and legislate in their own state.

The constitution gives each state the right to create their own laws within that state.

Texas wants to take that right from the states.
I agree it is the Republican mantra to keep people from voting...In Florida they had a good clean election yet the legislature and the governor are changing the existing laws to make it harder to vote....Typical GOP BS.
 
It's manifestly evident that the SC ran from their duties with regard to the 2020 lawsuit and the presidential election. John Robert's claim that Texas, and twenty other states, had no viable interest in seeing to it that
Pennsylvania, and the other corrupt swing states that threw the election to Joe Biden, didn't violate their own state as well as federal laws, was absurd since all those citizens were disenfranchised and denied their constitutional rights to a fair and honest election.

They were literally denied their right to have a say in a vital federal election and denied equal protection
under the law.

Roberts also falsely claimed that the SC was not the proper venue for this suit though when multiple states
sue one another (in such a crucial matter) what good is the SC at all if it will not intervene in a matter that
only this court is equipped to adjudicate?

Joe Biden and the democrats stole the election and they couldn't have done it without John Roberts and
the corrupt and illegitimate Supreme Court.
 
What Texas is opening the door to is my state can sue Texas for not having the proper electric system for their state and not joining with the other 49 states on a national grid.

We could sue them for not properly regulating business, energy and environmental safety.

We could also sue them for their laws that violate a woman's right to privacy and her own body.

What Texas wants to do is take away the citizens of each state's right to vote and legislate in their own state.

The constitution gives each state the right to create their own laws within that state.

Texas wants to take that right from the states.
Real bullshit! If Texas has an insufficient power grid then that is the problem of Texas and it's citizens.
Their problem doesn't effect Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc. in any significant way,
if any at all.

That's not the case when those states illegally and illegitimately change their voting laws just prior to the
2020 national election!
What a mere handful of democrat controlled states did had a drastic effect on every other state and
disenfranchised tens of millions of citizens by robbing them of their vote, in effect.
Or is equal protection under the law no longer a cornerstone of our "Justice" system?
 
Last edited:
There was not a case of corruption it was a case of how one legislative body made voting rules that other states did not like.

The truth is, the Texas Lawsuit is about government officials engaging in and condoning unconstitutional election practices.

The Supreme Court, by refusing to address and resolve the various unconstitutional practices mentioned in the Texas Bill of Complaint, is to allow even more corruption and voter irregularities into our federal election process, which most assuredly will lead to the kinds of elections which take place in Venezuela, Cuba, etc. And this is very frightening.

JWK
 
It would have been better if they had. The election was obviously stolen, the entire planet knows it. The SC could have ripped off the band-aid and we could have rounded up the guilty and hung them by now ... or shot in the face and buried in a mass grave.

This way it's going to leak out slowly and make us you look more idiotic..... if that's even possible.

Hmm.... I wonder why not one of the hundreds of election fraud affidavits has been challenged and the author prosecuted for filing false/misleading information to law enforcement.

Yeah, seems legit.

Let's ask the circle back girl:
 
Last edited:
There was not a case of corruption it was a case of how one legislative body made voting rules that other states did not like. The Constitution allows states to make their own laws on voting and elections.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators

for presidential elections:

Although the Constitution is silent on various aspects of the voting process, it seems to anticipate that states would be primarily responsible for establishing election procedures. Federal authority to regulate federal elections, however, is specifically provided for in the Constitution. There are two main provisions at issue—Article I, Section 4, cl. 1, which provides Congress the authority to set the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections, and Article II, Section 1, cl. 4, which provides that Congress may designate the “Time” for the choosing of Presidential Electors.



What Texas is doing is opening the door to is my state can sue Texas for not having the proper electric system for their state and not joining with the other 49 states on a national grid.

We could sue them for not properly regulating business, energy and environmental safety.

We could also sue them for their laws that violate a woman's right to privacy and her own body.

What Texas wants to do is take away the citizens of each state's right to vote and legislate in their own state.

The constitution gives each state the right to create their own laws within that state.

Texas wants to take that right from the states.

If I can get in on this, I'd like to sue the state of Texas for allowing the Dullass Cowgirls to exist. :deal:
 
There was not a case of corruption it was a case of how one legislative body made voting rules that other states did not like.

The truth is, the Texas Lawsuit is about government officials engaging in and condoning unconstitutional election practices.

The Supreme Court, by refusing to address and resolve the various unconstitutional practices mentioned in the Texas Bill of Complaint, is to allow even more corruption and voter irregularities into our federal election process, which most assuredly will lead to the kinds of elections which take place in Venezuela, Cuba, etc. And this is very frightening.

JWK

The truth is you're a fucking whiner who can't deal with LOSING so instead you live in this fantasy hallucination world of self-delusion where you just make it up instead of facing facts because Reality is hard and shit.

For FUCK'S sake I hope you're not a sports fan. You could never survive your team's first defeat.

GROW THE FUCK UP.
 

Forum List

Back
Top