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

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.

:rolleyes:
JWK

To put it into terms you can easily understand. The court grants standing to parties that have a particularized interest. In short, if your interest in a controversy is no greater than that of any other possible party (generalized harm) than you do not have standing.

In the case of Texas, it was harmed no more than the other 48 states and 3 territories, over what Pennsylvania did. The party with standing would have been Pennsylvania, or the candidates, as the parties actually harmed.
 
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
The supreme court is the highest court of appeals in the land. They have only once in their history tried a case of original jurisdiction.
 
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.

Your case would be public safety.

But it would be like living in an upscale neighborhood, where the driveways have Rolls Royce, Ferrari, Mercedes parked there. But one neighbor has a rusty Yugo, which is bringing down the property values. You have no right to tell that neighbor what kind of car he has, or how he has to take care of it.
 
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).

You said twenty-some odd states. There are 50 states in the union. Unless they are all discriminated against by the controversy in question, it's not a universal harm. And if generalized, its greatest impact would be on Pennsylvania itself, making them the only state with standing.
 
Your case would be public safety.
Yes. Every hear of a "metaphor"?
Look it up sometime.

But it would be like living in an upscale neighborhood, where the driveways have Rolls Royce, Ferrari, Mercedes parked there. But one neighbor has a rusty Yugo, which is bringing down the property values. You have no right to tell that neighbor what kind of car he has, or how he has to take care of it.
You stretch credulity to the breaking point. And not to get lost in the weeds but if homeowners had a legal responsibility to maintain the prestige and property values on the expensive homes they invested in...then yes
indeed, they would have grounds for a law suit.
 
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.

Except that no, it's nothing like that, because your calling the Fire Department ISN'T BUTTING IN ON HOW YOUR NEIGHBOR RUNS HIS HOUSE.

:banghead:

For SHIT'S SAKE you friggin' Rumpbots don't give a flying shit how retarded you look posting inane diarrhea just so y'all can dance around the fact that YOU LOST.
 
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
The supreme court is the highest court of appeals in the land. They have only once in their history tried a case of original jurisdiction.

What does that have to do with the Court not adjudicating a legitimate case which only the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over?

JWK
 
.

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.
Fuck off you lying bitch. Massive fraud happened. Followed by censorship of that fact in a huge cover of an obviously criminal element now in power.
 
But it would be like living in an upscale neighborhood, where the driveways have Rolls Royce, Ferrari, Mercedes parked there. But one neighbor has a rusty Yugo, which is bringing down the property values. You have no right to tell that neighbor what kind of car he has, or how he has to take care of it.
You stretch credulity to the breaking point. And not to get lost in the weeds but if homeowners had a legal responsibility to maintain the prestige and property values on the expensive homes they invested in...then yes
indeed, they would have grounds for a law suit.
That's why they have zoning laws, and community standards. Absent them a person doesn't have the right to impose their arbitrary standards of behavior on anybody else.

If there was a problem with Pennsylvanias election, it's up to the people of Pennsylvania or the candidates, to raise that objection. Everybody else can't try to impose their interpretation of Pennsylvania law.
 
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.

Except that no, it's nothing like that, because your calling the Fire Department ISN'T BUTTING IN ON HOW YOUR NEIGHBOR RUNS HIS HOUSE.

:banghead:

For SHIT'S SAKE you friggin' Rumpbots don't give a flying shit how retarded you look posting inane diarrhea just so y'all can dance around the fact that YOU LOST.
Being cheated is not losing. Scumbag.
 
The supreme court is the highest court of appeals in the land. They have only once in their history tried a case of original jurisdiction.
What does that have to do with the Court not adjudicating a legitimate case which only the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over?

JWK
Because every other federal court ALSO has jurisdiction. Texas was trying to use the loophole left open after the 11th amendment. But like already posted many many times, Texas did not suffer particularized harm, Hence Article 3 section 2 clause 1 on jurisdiction, denies them standing.
 
That's why they have zoning laws, and community standards. Absent them a person doesn't have the right to impose their arbitrary standards of behavior on anybody else.
And what if those "community standards" were scrupulously enforced to keep their fancy neighborhood from
looking like meth addicts lived there?
And what if everybody in those neighborhoods all legally agreed and understood before moving there they had to conform to certain regulations designed to protect everyone's property values?

You are no lawyer. Not even a poor one.
 
.

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.
Fuck off you lying bitch. Massive fraud happened. Followed by censorship of that fact in a huge cover of an obviously criminal element now in power.

:tinfoil:
 
You said twenty-some odd states. There are 50 states in the union. Unless they are all discriminated against by the controversy in question, it's not a universal harm. And if generalized, its greatest impact would be on Pennsylvania itself, making them the only state with standing.
No "universal harm" is claimed. I'm sure California, Massachusetts, Washington, etc. were all delighted that
Pennsylvania and those other few swing states rigged the election.

But what about Texas and the signatories to this suit? I guess to you these people don't deserve the right to
fair and free elections. You got what you wanted....fuck the other people!

Let them move out of the country if they don't like it.
 
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.

Except that no, it's nothing like that, because your calling the Fire Department ISN'T BUTTING IN ON HOW YOUR NEIGHBOR RUNS HIS HOUSE.

:banghead:

For SHIT'S SAKE you friggin' Rumpbots don't give a flying shit how retarded you look posting inane diarrhea just so y'all can dance around the fact that YOU LOST.
Being cheated is not losing. Scumbag.

Being self-delusional sure is.

What is it about YOU LOST that you can't grasp here?
It means you LOST. It means you CAME UP SHORT. It means there was a contest and you DIDN'T WIN. It means given the choice of an orange freakblob and a 77-year-old boring slug, the electorate came out in billions, thousands and thousands of them voting on rooftops, to choose ANYTHING that wasn't the orange blob. It means people in the Real World (qv) had SEEN AND HEARD ENOUGH. It means the country was so embarrassed by said orange blob that they grabbed the proverbial can of Raid to get rid of the infestation.

You can whine and wail and throw your toys about the room, you can come up with any number of inane comic-book fictions about "fraud" this and "stolen" that and "cheated" the other thing, but all it makes you is a fucking SORE LOSER.

Understand???


My thunder, Rumpbots are DENSE.
 
If there was a problem with Pennsylvanias election, it's up to the people of Pennsylvania or the candidates, to raise that objection. Everybody else can't try to impose their interpretation of Pennsylvania law.
Texas and the signatories to their suit has a stake in the presidential election too.
It's unfortunate Texas has to bring suit in the Supreme Court to get election laws imposed.
But when we see John Roberts rolling up his sleeves and standing in the doorway of the Little Rock schools
making sure no negroes pass through, so to speak, then what is Texas to do?

I want everyone's vote to count. You clearly don't. Are you even a citizen of this country?
 
The supreme court is the highest court of appeals in the land. They have only once in their history tried a case of original jurisdiction.
What does that have to do with the Court not adjudicating a legitimate case which only the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over?

JWK
Because every other federal court ALSO has jurisdiction.

tenor.gif


The United States Supreme Court has both original and exclusive jurisdiction in the case under consideration.

See the Texas lawsuit under the heading JURISDICTION AND VENUE

JWK

Today’s Fifth Column media ___ MSNBC, NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, WASHINGTON POST, ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, New York Daily News, Time, in addition to Facebook, Twitter ETC., and countless Yellow Journalists who are socialist revolutionaries ___ make Russia’s old Pravda, [an organ of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union] look like propaganda amateurs.
 
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.

Except that no, it's nothing like that, because your calling the Fire Department ISN'T BUTTING IN ON HOW YOUR NEIGHBOR RUNS HIS HOUSE.

:banghead:

For SHIT'S SAKE you friggin' Rumpbots don't give a flying shit how retarded you look posting inane diarrhea just so y'all can dance around the fact that YOU LOST.
Being cheated is not losing. Scumbag.

Being self-delusional sure is.

What is it about YOU LOST that you can't grasp here?
It means you LOST. It means you CAME UP SHORT. It means there was a contest and you DIDN'T WIN. It means given the choice of an orange freakblob and a 77-year-old boring slug, the electorate came out in billions, thousands and thousands of them voting on rooftops, to choose ANYTHING that wasn't the orange blob. It means people in the Real World (qv) had SEEN AND HEARD ENOUGH. It means the country was so embarrassed by said orange blob that they grabbed the proverbial can of Raid to get rid of the infestation.

You can whine and wail and throw your toys about the room, you can come up with any number of inane comic-book fictions about "fraud" this and "stolen" that and "cheated" the other thing, but all it makes you is a fucking SORE LOSER.

Understand???


My thunder, Rumpbots are DENSE.
You can deny the fraud and call people names but it will never change the fact fraud happened and there is no doubt our government is thoroughly corrupt. What can be done about it is an ongoing battle between criminal enablers like you and Americans. You are no American in any sense of the word.
 
.

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.
Fuck off you lying bitch. Massive fraud happened. Followed by censorship of that fact in a huge cover of an obviously criminal element now in power.

It saddening how so many embrace the kind of shit which happens in countries like Cuba, Venezuela, etc.

JWK

There can be no “unity” between socialist Leaders who lure voters with a piece of free government cheese, and Leaders who support and defend rights associated with property ownership, a meritocracy, and a free market, free enterprise system!
 
.

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.
Fuck off you lying bitch. Massive fraud happened. Followed by censorship of that fact in a huge cover of an obviously criminal element now in power.

It saddening how so many embrace the kind of shit which happens in countries like Cuba, Venezuela, etc.

JWK

There can be no “unity” between socialist Leaders who lure voters with a piece of free government cheese, and Leaders who support and defend rights associated with property ownership, a meritocracy, and a free market, free enterprise system!

Yet another ironic post for a yahoo who never leaves his own house in upstate New York.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top