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

[Moonglow]

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

Where in the Constitution does it say that? How can an election process that has been established by legislature and signed by the Governor a year prior to an election be considered unconstitutional? If it was unconstitutional why did Texass wait until after the election to sue?

 

[AFrench2]

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

Absolutely Yes they were. They should have ignored the 81 million voters and the Electoral College that voted for Biden, and just given it to Trump. No need for Democracy in a Democracy.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

Congressional Authority to Direct How States Administer Elections

In the United States, states have primary responsibility for the administration of federal elections. The federal government, however,...

www.everycrsreport.com

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.

If the people of Florida and other states were smart they would vote all those republicans out of office and replace them with politicians who make it easier to vote.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Congressional Authority to Direct How States Administer Elections

In the United States, states have primary responsibility for the administration of federal elections. The federal government, however,...

www.everycrsreport.com

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.

Every. Single. Complaint. from that camp has been about access. Too many chances to vote.

• Get that drop box out of there.
• Shorten those early voting days.
• Don't count those mail-ins until election day, just leave them sitting there.
• Don't accept those mail-ins in the timeframe you said you would.
• Then you have Graham Cracker calling around trying to coerce officials in far-flung states to throw out ballots from "you people" areas. Oddly he never called his neighbor NORTH Carolina where we showed the same flexibility on mail-in votes. Because Rump was ahead here.
• Then you have Rump sabotaging the United States Postal Service, AGAIN to hinder those mail-ins.

And they're STILL doing it.

>> In a backlash to historic voter turnout in the 2020 general election, and grounded in a rash of baseless and racist allegations of voter fraud and election irregularities, legislators have introduced well over four times the number of bills to restrict voting access as compared to roughly this time last year. Thirty-three states have introduced, prefiled, or carried over 165 restrictive bills this year (as compared to 35 such bills in fifteen states on February 3, 2020). << -- Voting Laws Roundup, February 2021​

When a political party's entire thrust is to disenfranchise, that speaks volumes.

 

[surada]

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.

The SC followed the law and the Constitution .. Texas had NO standing.. I know Trump is ridiculously stupid, but surely you are intelligent enough to LEARN.

 

[johnwk]

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

Where in the Constitution does it say that? How can an election process that has been established by legislature and signed by the Governor a year prior to an election be considered unconstitutional? If it was unconstitutional why did Texass wait until after the election to sue?

Your deflections are noted. It is irrelevant as to when a violation of our Constitution is brought to the attention of our Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, by refusing to address and resolve the various violations of our federal Constitution raised 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.

In any event, I see you never attempted to answer the fundamental question: 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

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The SC followed the law and the Constitution .. Texas had NO standing.. I know Trump is ridiculously stupid, but surely you are intelligent enough to LEARN.

The vote of Texans, and the twenty-two other states that signed on to the Texas suit, had no right to equal protection under the law?

News flash: There is no "law" that says one state can screw over other states by changing their election laws.
In a national election the fifty states are linked and interdependent and ALL states are dependent upon
one another to follow their laws so something like this '20 cluster **** doesn't happen.

You'd better LEARN something before you open your misinformed lie hole.

 

[surada]

The SC followed the law and the Constitution .. Texas had NO standing.. I know Trump is ridiculously stupid, but surely you are intelligent enough to LEARN.

The vote of Texans, and the twenty-two other states that signed on to the Texas suit, had no right to equal protection under the law?

News flash: There is no "law" that says one state can screw over other states by changing their election laws.
In a national election the fifty states are linked and interdependent and ALL states are dependent upon
one another to follow their laws so something like this '20 cluster **** doesn't happen.

You'd better LEARN something before you open your misinformed lie hole.

Do you have a JD? Look up "Standing".

 

[johnwk]

The SC followed the law and the Constitution .. Texas had NO standing.. I know Trump is ridiculously stupid, but surely you are intelligent enough to LEARN.

The vote of Texans, and the twenty-two other states that signed on to the Texas suit, had no right to equal protection under the law?

News flash: There is no "law" that says one state can screw over other states by changing their election laws.
In a national election the fifty states are linked and interdependent and ALL states are dependent upon
one another to follow their laws so something like this '20 cluster **** doesn't happen.

You'd better LEARN something before you open your misinformed lie hole.

Do you have a JD? Look up "Standing".

The fundamental constitutional requisites to establish standing are that the plaintiff(s) must have:

1) suffered some actual or threatened injury;

2) that injury can fairly be traced to the challenged action of the defendant(s); and

3) that the injury can be redressed by the Court.

Now that we know the basis for standing, What is the Court’s 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

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Absolutely Yes they were. They should have ignored the 81 million voters and the Electoral College that voted for Biden, and just given it to Trump. No need for Democracy in a Democracy.

You don't seem to mind ignoring the will of voters as long as you get your way.
The illegal actions of five significant swing states swung the election to Inert Joe Biden and that suits you just
fine. What are the point of laws at all when cretins like you approve of ignoring them?

 

[postman]

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."

You have to realize that every state can chose it's own method for selecting the presidential electors. From letting the people chose by popular vote, to having the legislature chose them by whatever means they see fit, to not choosing electors at all, and sitting out the election, like what happened in the first presidential election.

Since each state makes that choice, and is the sole body in charge of it's elections, other states can't impress their ideals onto any other state.

Any challenge to the way a state runs it's election gives standing to the candidates, and the residents of that state. It doesn't give standing to anybody in the whole entire world with an interest in the outcome of the US presidential election.

 

[postman]

The fundamental constitutional requisites to establish standing are that the plaintiff(s) must have:

1) suffered some actual or threatened injury;

2) that injury can fairly be traced to the challenged action of the defendant(s); and

3) that the injury can be redressed by the Court.

Now that we know the basis for standing, What is the Court’s 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

Start with the first. Suffered actual or threatened injury.

What injury did Texas suffer when it came to who won the election? It can actually be argued that Texas is better off with Biden winning.
Biden declared Texas an emergency, and sent in FEMA.
Trump would have only thrown them rolls of paper towels.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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."

You have to realize that every state can chose it's own method for selecting the presidential electors. From letting the people chose by popular vote, to having the legislature chose them by whatever means they see fit, to not choosing electors at all, and sitting out the election, like what happened in the first presidential election.

Since each state makes that choice, and is the sole body in charge of it's elections, other states can't impress their ideals onto any other state.

Any challenge to the way a state runs it's election gives standing to the candidates, and the residents of that state. It doesn't give standing to anybody in the whole entire world with an interest in the outcome of the US presidential election.

Apples and oranges. The issue isn't choosing presidential electors but the actual voting itself.
Each state can choose for itself how that is to be done but Pennsylvania's election laws have to be
formed by their own state legislature....not in an ad hoc individual way by a single individual, as
Pennsylvania did.

That's illegal and unconstitutional, son.

 

[postman]

News flash: There is no "law" that says one state can screw over other states by changing their election laws.
In a national election the fifty states are linked and interdependent and ALL states are dependent upon
one another to follow their laws so something like this '20 cluster **** doesn't happen.

The first presidential election proves that's absolute nonsense. The states at the time had widely different schemes for how they chose their electors. From proportional allocation of electors, to winner take all, to having the legislature not give the people the franchise at all.

One state can't say their system was any better than another states system, and as such that inability to dictate how another state handles it's election, relieves them of any standing to tell another state how to handle it's own affairs.

 

[surada]

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

Where in the Constitution does it say that? How can an election process that has been established by legislature and signed by the Governor a year prior to an election be considered unconstitutional? If it was unconstitutional why did Texass wait until after the election to sue?

Your deflections are noted. It is irrelevant as to when a violation of our Constitution is brought to the attention of our Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, by refusing to address and resolve the various violations of our federal Constitution raised 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.

In any event, I see you never attempted to answer the fundamental question: 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

Look up the legal definition of Standing.

 

[postman]

Apples and oranges. The issue isn't choosing presidential electors but the actual voting itself.
Each state can choose for itself how that is to be done but Pennsylvania's election laws have to be
formed by their own state legislature....not in an ad hoc individual way by a single individual, as
Pennsylvania did.

That's illegal and unconstitutional, son.

Then that's up to Pennsylvania to fix the problem.

It's like a parent with an unruly child. You can't decide that the parent isn't disciplining the child, so you step in and invoke discipline upon the other persons child.

As I said, the candidates, and the people of that state have the standing to object to how it's done. Other states, and the entire world for that matter, could otherwise claim standing, such as Vladimir Putin suing a state, because he wanted Trump to win.

 

[postman]

Each state can choose for itself how that is to be done but Pennsylvania's election laws have to be
formed by their own state legislature....not in an ad hoc individual way by a single individual, as
Pennsylvania did.

That's illegal and unconstitutional, son.

That's up to Pennsylvania, or the candidates to raise any objection to how Pennsylvania handled its election. Texas has no right to interpret another states laws, or make a determination of error or unconstitutionality.

 

[postman]

Texas is like the football commissioner, saying that the baseball commissioner made a bad call. Should he have standing to sue?

They are each are in charge of their own league, and have no standing to object to what the other league is doing.

 

[johnwk]

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

Where in the Constitution does it say that? How can an election process that has been established by legislature and signed by the Governor a year prior to an election be considered unconstitutional? If it was unconstitutional why did Texass wait until after the election to sue?

Your deflections are noted. It is irrelevant as to when a violation of our Constitution is brought to the attention of our Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, by refusing to address and resolve the various violations of our federal Constitution raised 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.

In any event, I see you never attempted to answer the fundamental question: 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

Look up the legal definition of Standing.

Try paying attention to what HAS ALREADY BEEN POSTED



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

 

[surada]

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

Where in the Constitution does it say that? How can an election process that has been established by legislature and signed by the Governor a year prior to an election be considered unconstitutional? If it was unconstitutional why did Texass wait until after the election to sue?

Your deflections are noted. It is irrelevant as to when a violation of our Constitution is brought to the attention of our Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, by refusing to address and resolve the various violations of our federal Constitution raised 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.

In any event, I see you never attempted to answer the fundamental question: 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

Look up the legal definition of Standing.

Try paying attention to what HAS ALREADY BEEN POSTED



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

Standing | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

standing

www.law.cornell.edu

Standing, or locus standi, is capacity of a party to bring suit in court. Standing in State Court A state's statutes will determine what constitutes standing in that particular state's courts. These typically revolve around the requirement that plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm and that this harm is redressable.