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?

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

I have already posted that answer and it doesn't change because :
1. You ignore it.
2. Don't wanna accept it.

It is your problem that you can't accept that the Supreme Court knows what it is doing and you try to tell them, oh, no you don't know jack because I'm some dipshit on a message board.

 

[postman]

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

I have already posted that answer and it doesn't change because :
1. You ignore it.
2. Don't wanna accept it.

It is your problem that you can't accept that the Supreme Court knows what it is doing and you try to tell them, oh, no you don't know jack because I'm some dipshit on a message board.

Maybe a better way of looking at it is to work the chain of who doesn't have standing. First it's clear that foreign nationals and foreign government don't have standing. So that eliminates about 5.9 billion people.
His argument is that they have an interest in who wins, but there is no direct harm they can show. Except maybe Vladimir Putin, who would be losing a puppet, but that's not legally recognized.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

.

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

Obama, once again, threatened to out Roberts with those trips to Lolita Island

 

[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

I have already posted that answer . . .

I see you are still making stuff up.

The fact is, you never provided the Supreme Court's rational and legal reasoning why Texas does not have standing, nor did the Court explain why it asserted Texas did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections.



JWK

 

[postman]

The fact is, you never provided the Supreme Court's rational and legal reasoning why Texas does not have standing, nor did the Court explain why it asserted Texas did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections.



JWK

As I pointed out. The football commissioner runs football, the baseball commissioner runs baseball. The football commissioner doesn't have standing (like Texas) to object to what the other league (like Pennsylvania) is doing. Nor does he have credibility in interpreting the other leagues rules.

Plus he can't show harm to football, because of the way baseball is run.

 

[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?

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

I have already posted that answer . . .

I see you are still making stuff up.

The fact is, you never provided the Supreme Court's rational and legal reasoning why Texas does not have standing, nor did the Court explain why it asserted Texas did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections.



JWK

The Supreme Court gave the answer I proved why they did it in post #2. But you can deny this post or any post it doesn't matter, what matters is what actually happened that you can't handle and need to make up shit over. You also never did prove inn the Constitution where the Supreme Court is wrong, nor did you provide any quotes from any cases that would prove a precedent for your case..

 

[postman]

You also never did prove inn the Constitution where the Supreme Court is wrong, nor did you provide any quotes from any cases that would prove a precedent for your case..

Line Item Veto Act of 1996 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 Pub.L. 104–130 (text) (pdf) was a federal law of the United States that granted the President the power to line-item veto budget bills passed by Congress, but its effect was brief as the act was soon ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York.

It was immediately challenged in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by a group of six senators, first among whom was Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), where it was declared unconstitutional by District Judge Harry Jackson, a Reagan appointee, on April 10, 1997. The case was subsequently remanded by the Supreme Court of the United States with instructions to dismiss on the grounds that the senators had not suffered sufficient, particularized injury to maintain suit under Article III of the United States Constitution (i.e., the senators lacked standing).

 

[Moonglow]

You also never did prove inn the Constitution where the Supreme Court is wrong, nor did you provide any quotes from any cases that would prove a precedent for your case..

Line Item Veto Act of 1996 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 Pub.L. 104–130 (text) (pdf) was a federal law of the United States that granted the President the power to line-item veto budget bills passed by Congress, but its effect was brief as the act was soon ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York.

It was immediately challenged in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by a group of six senators, first among whom was Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), where it was declared unconstitutional by District Judge Harry Jackson, a Reagan appointee, on April 10, 1997. The case was subsequently remanded by the Supreme Court of the United States with instructions to dismiss on the grounds that the senators had not suffered sufficient, particularized injury to maintain suit under Article III of the United States Constitution (i.e., the senators lacked standing).

What does this have to do with Article I, section 4 of the Constitution?

 

[postman]

What does this have to do with Article I, section 4 of the Constitution?

This is an example of the USSC rejecting a case for lack of standing. And why they had no standing. The same reason they gave for Texas having no standing.

They did the same thing under Chief Justice Roberts, as they had earlier done under Chief Justice Rehnquist.

 

[postman]

Raines v. Byrd - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

six members of Congress, including Republican Mark Hatfield, sued to prevent use of the line-item veto. U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found the Act unconstitutional

On appeal to the USSC, the USSC ruled:

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, as they had not suffered any particularized injury.

Majority	Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg
Concurrence	Souter, joined by Ginsburg

 

[postman]

Case or Controversy Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) as embodying two distinct limitations on exercise of judicial review: a bar on the issuance of advisory opinions, and a requirement that parties must have standing.[1]

 

[Lastamender]

.

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.

He was cheated like me and 80 million others. Your caps and your rhetoric mean shit. There was massive fraud and has been proven to everyone except the courts.

 

[johnwk]

The Supreme Court gave the answer I proved why they did it in post #2

Still making stuff up I see.

Post No. 2 does not provide the Supreme Court's rational and legal reasoning to substantiate Texas did not have standing, nor does post No. 2 document why the Court asserted the Texas lawsuit did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections.


JWK

 

[postman]

He was cheated like me and 80 million others. Your caps and your rhetoric mean shit. There was massive fraud and has been proven to everyone except the courts.

How about convincing the only authorities that count?

 

[Lastamender]

He was cheated like me and 80 million others. Your caps and your rhetoric mean shit. There was massive fraud and has been proven to everyone except the courts.

How about convincing the only authorities that count?

How about a chance? The authorities are corrupt or Biden would not be the illegitimate president right now. The refusal to hear evidence is because that evidence would have EASILY proven fraud.

 

[postman]

Post No. 2 does not provide the Supreme Court's rational and legal reasoning to substantiate Texas did not have standing, ...


JWK

Allen v. Wright ("an asserted right to have the Government act in accordance with law is not sufficient, standing alone, to confer jurisdiction on a federal court"), Diamond v. Charles (Article III standing "is not to be placed in the hands of ‘concerned bystanders,’ who will use it simply as a ‘vehicle for the vindication of value interests.’"),

 

[johnwk]

He was cheated like me and 80 million others. Your caps and your rhetoric mean shit. There was massive fraud and has been proven to everyone except the courts.

How about convincing the only authorities that count?

The problem is, the Supreme Court refuses to hold an evidentiary hearing, listen to sworn witnesses, and examine evidence presented. And this is the kind of shit that happens in countries like Venezuela, Cuba, etc.

JWK

 

[Pogo]

.

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.

He was cheated like me and 80 million others. Your caps and your rhetoric mean shit. There was massive fraud and has been proven to everyone except the courts.

"Everybody knows two plus two equals five, it's been proven to everyone except those in the real world".

Poster please. Fuck outta here.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

hat'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.

That's exactly like claiming I should let my next door neighbor's house burn down, and probably my own along with it, instead of phoning the fire department to intervene, because it's not my business to butt in.

If Texas doesn't want their own citizen's rights (and those other twenty-some odd states too) to become meaningless, which is exactly what happened, then they, Texas, have not only the right, but a duty to
redress the John Roberts led Supreme Court for protection from the lawless actions in Pennsylvania
(the gutless perfidy of John Roberts himself, notwithstanding).


Texas is under no obligation to sit by idly while their rights are flushed down the toilet.
To suggest they should shrug their shoulders hopelessly and walk away shows a real lack of moral or legal obligation and good judgement.

 

[Pogo]

He was cheated like me and 80 million others. Your caps and your rhetoric mean shit. There was massive fraud and has been proven to everyone except the courts.

How about convincing the only authorities that count?

The problem is, the Supreme Court refuses to hold an evidentiary hearing, listen to sworn witnesses, and examine evidence presented. And this is the kind of shit that happens in countries like Venezuela, Cuba, etc.

JWK

IT DOESN'T FUCKING NEED to "hold evidentiary hearings" Dumbass. Texas HAS NO STANDING, THEREFORE IT'S NOT A THING, PERIOD. It doesn't even START.

Exactly the same as Pennsylvania has no standing to whine and stomp its feet about how Texas conducted ITS vote. It just AIN'T THAT STATE'S BUSINESS.