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

OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
Yet another ironic post for a yahoo who never leaves his own house in upstate New York.
:rolleyes:
I Don't live in upstate New York.

Aside from that, Texas has standing and a judiciable controversy in its election lawsuit!


When a number of states disenfranchise the voters of Texas in a federal election by illegal voting practices in those states, you bet the State of Texas has standing and a judiciable controversy with those states, and, the United States Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over such controversies (Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, USC)



See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006)

"Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised. “[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964)."


In addition, our 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."



Also see Bush v. Gore in 2000, citing McPherson v. Blacker: "A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question." In the instant case a "significant departure", e.g., would be Pennsylvania’s passage of ACT 77 by its Legislature which failed to take the prescribed actions to amend the state constitution as needed before implementing it.


Finally, 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.”


JWK


When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
 

Jets

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
2,277
Reaction score
1,058
Points
210
The Supreme Court, in an unsigned order, denied Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint. The court’s order said the motion was denied “for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”


Justices Alito and Thomas believe the text of Article III, Section 2 establishes the court’s original jurisdiction in mandatory terms. They emphasize the word “shall” in that section and see no justification for their colleagues’ reading that word to mean “may.” They are presently the only justices who read the section as requiring the court to take original jurisdiction of all cases between two or more states.

It’s important to remember that those two justices said they would allow Texas to file its bill of complaint, they also said they would not give Texas the remedy it was seeking—to invalidate the four states’ electors chosen by the votes of their citizens.


 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
It’s important to remember that those two justices said they would allow Texas to file its bill of complaint, they also said they would not give Texas the remedy it was seeking—to invalidate the four states’ electors chosen by the votes of their citizens.

It is also important to remember that Texas, in its prayer for relief, asks the following:

"H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

And just what is the other relief which Justice Thomas recommends?



See: Justice Thomas' OPINION AND RECOMENDATION

Thomas wrote:

"These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”

And . . .

“One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,”

Thomas also wrote:

“An election system lacks clear rules when, as here, different officials dispute who has authority to set or change those rules. This kind of dispute brews confusion because voters may not know which rules to follow. Even worse, with more than one system of rules in place, competing candidates might each declare victory under different sets of rules.”

It is becoming more obvious as each day passes that a majority on our Supreme Court is intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion and rebellion by refusing to abide by and enforce the provisions of our Constitution.



JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
 

Jets

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
2,277
Reaction score
1,058
Points
210
It’s important to remember that those two justices said they would allow Texas to file its bill of complaint, they also said they would not give Texas the remedy it was seeking—to invalidate the four states’ electors chosen by the votes of their citizens.

It is also important to remember that Texas, in its prayer for relief, asks the following:

"H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

And just what is the other relief which Justice Thomas recommends?



See: Justice Thomas' OPINION AND RECOMENDATION

Thomas wrote:

"These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”

And . . .

“One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,”

Thomas also wrote:

“An election system lacks clear rules when, as here, different officials dispute who has authority to set or change those rules. This kind of dispute brews confusion because voters may not know which rules to follow. Even worse, with more than one system of rules in place, competing candidates might each declare victory under different sets of rules.”

It is becoming more obvious as each day passes that a majority on our Supreme Court is intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion and rebellion by refusing to abide by and enforce the provisions of our Constitution.



JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
That’s fine, Justice Thomas is entitled to his opinion as are the other justices.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
It’s important to remember that those two justices said they would allow Texas to file its bill of complaint, they also said they would not give Texas the remedy it was seeking—to invalidate the four states’ electors chosen by the votes of their citizens.

It is also important to remember that Texas, in its prayer for relief, asks the following:

"H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

And just what is the other relief which Justice Thomas recommends?



See: Justice Thomas' OPINION AND RECOMENDATION

Thomas wrote:

"These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”

And . . .

“One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,”

Thomas also wrote:

“An election system lacks clear rules when, as here, different officials dispute who has authority to set or change those rules. This kind of dispute brews confusion because voters may not know which rules to follow. Even worse, with more than one system of rules in place, competing candidates might each declare victory under different sets of rules.”

It is becoming more obvious as each day passes that a majority on our Supreme Court is intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion and rebellion by refusing to abide by and enforce the provisions of our Constitution.



JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
That’s fine, Justice Thomas is entitled to his opinion as are the other justices.
I thought your bone of contention was the Supreme Court " . . . said they would not give Texas the remedy it was seeking—to invalidate the four states’ electors chosen by the votes of their citizens."

But, the fact is, Texas, in its prayer for relief, also asked:

"H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

Is the relief which Justice Thomas was willing to offer, as documented above, not "just and proper"?

JWK
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
20,031
Reaction score
3,837
Points
290
.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

JWK

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



JWK
Texas did not have standing to interfere in another state's elections. The Roberts court nmade the right decision. This was just a rehash of previous Trump lawsuits and he offered he evide4nce of anything untoward.
 

Jets

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
2,277
Reaction score
1,058
Points
210
It’s important to remember that those two justices said they would allow Texas to file its bill of complaint, they also said they would not give Texas the remedy it was seeking—to invalidate the four states’ electors chosen by the votes of their citizens.

It is also important to remember that Texas, in its prayer for relief, asks the following:

"H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

And just what is the other relief which Justice Thomas recommends?



See: Justice Thomas' OPINION AND RECOMENDATION

Thomas wrote:

"These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”

And . . .

“One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,”

Thomas also wrote:

“An election system lacks clear rules when, as here, different officials dispute who has authority to set or change those rules. This kind of dispute brews confusion because voters may not know which rules to follow. Even worse, with more than one system of rules in place, competing candidates might each declare victory under different sets of rules.”

It is becoming more obvious as each day passes that a majority on our Supreme Court is intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion and rebellion by refusing to abide by and enforce the provisions of our Constitution.



JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
That’s fine, Justice Thomas is entitled to his opinion as are the other justices.
I thought your bone of contention was the Supreme Court " . . . said they would not give Texas the remedy it was seeking—to invalidate the four states’ electors chosen by the votes of their citizens."

But, the fact is, Texas, in its prayer for relief, also asked:

"H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

Is the relief which Justice Thomas was willing to offer, as documented above, not "just and proper"?

JWK
There was no “bone of contention”.

Justice Thomas is entitled to his opinion but it was not agreed with by the majority of the court.
 

bodecea

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
142,368
Reaction score
18,346
Points
2,180
Location
#HasNoClothes
.

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
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

JWK

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



JWK
Texas did not have standing to interfere in another state's elections.
And the defendant states named in the Texas lawsuit raised a federal question when they disenfranchised voters in other states, which is what they have done.

JWK
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
It’s important to remember that those two justices said they would allow Texas to file its bill of complaint, they also said they would not give Texas the remedy it was seeking—to invalidate the four states’ electors chosen by the votes of their citizens.

It is also important to remember that Texas, in its prayer for relief, asks the following:

"H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

And just what is the other relief which Justice Thomas recommends?



See: Justice Thomas' OPINION AND RECOMENDATION

Thomas wrote:

"These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”

And . . .

“One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,”

Thomas also wrote:

“An election system lacks clear rules when, as here, different officials dispute who has authority to set or change those rules. This kind of dispute brews confusion because voters may not know which rules to follow. Even worse, with more than one system of rules in place, competing candidates might each declare victory under different sets of rules.”

It is becoming more obvious as each day passes that a majority on our Supreme Court is intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion and rebellion by refusing to abide by and enforce the provisions of our Constitution.



JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
That’s fine, Justice Thomas is entitled to his opinion as are the other justices.
I thought your bone of contention was the Supreme Court " . . . said they would not give Texas the remedy it was seeking—to invalidate the four states’ electors chosen by the votes of their citizens."

But, the fact is, Texas, in its prayer for relief, also asked:

"H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

Is the relief which Justice Thomas was willing to offer, as documented above, not "just and proper"?

JWK
There was no “bone of contention”.

Justice Thomas is entitled to his opinion but it was not agreed with by the majority of the court.
You never answered the question: Is the relief which Justice Thomas was willing to offer, as documented above, not "just and proper"?

JWK

Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
8,274
Reaction score
4,273
Points
893
.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

JWK

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



JWK
Texas didn't have standing.. Its Law 101.


  • Standing to sue | law | Britannica
    Standing to sue, in law, the requirement that a person who brings a suit be a proper party to request adjudication of the particular issue involved.
  • 3 Elements of Standing to Sue | Morris Bart, LLC
    Oct 14, 2019 · When a party files a lawsuit there are many things he or she must prove besides just the facts of the case. One of these legal concepts is known in Latin as “locus standi,” in other words, “ standing to sue. ” Here is the essential breakdown of this principle and how it might affect your legal rights.
 

Jets

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
2,277
Reaction score
1,058
Points
210
It’s important to remember that those two justices said they would allow Texas to file its bill of complaint, they also said they would not give Texas the remedy it was seeking—to invalidate the four states’ electors chosen by the votes of their citizens.

It is also important to remember that Texas, in its prayer for relief, asks the following:

"H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

And just what is the other relief which Justice Thomas recommends?



See: Justice Thomas' OPINION AND RECOMENDATION

Thomas wrote:

"These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”

And . . .

“One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,”

Thomas also wrote:

“An election system lacks clear rules when, as here, different officials dispute who has authority to set or change those rules. This kind of dispute brews confusion because voters may not know which rules to follow. Even worse, with more than one system of rules in place, competing candidates might each declare victory under different sets of rules.”

It is becoming more obvious as each day passes that a majority on our Supreme Court is intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion and rebellion by refusing to abide by and enforce the provisions of our Constitution.



JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
That’s fine, Justice Thomas is entitled to his opinion as are the other justices.
I thought your bone of contention was the Supreme Court " . . . said they would not give Texas the remedy it was seeking—to invalidate the four states’ electors chosen by the votes of their citizens."

But, the fact is, Texas, in its prayer for relief, also asked:

"H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

Is the relief which Justice Thomas was willing to offer, as documented above, not "just and proper"?

JWK
There was no “bone of contention”.

Justice Thomas is entitled to his opinion but it was not agreed with by the majority of the court.
You never answered the question: Is the relief which Justice Thomas was willing to offer, as documented above, not "just and proper"?

JWK

Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
No it was not “just and proper”.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,497
Reaction score
22,516
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Yet another ironic post for a yahoo who never leaves his own house in upstate New York.
:rolleyes:
I Don't live in upstate New York.

Aside from that, Texas has standing and a judiciable controversy in its election lawsuit!


When a number of states disenfranchise the voters of Texas in a federal election by illegal voting practices in those states, you bet the State of Texas has standing and a judiciable controversy with those states, and, the United States Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over such controversies (Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, USC)



See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006)

"Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised. “[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964)."


In addition, our 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."



Also see Bush v. Gore in 2000, citing McPherson v. Blacker: "A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question." In the instant case a "significant departure", e.g., would be Pennsylvania’s passage of ACT 77 by its Legislature which failed to take the prescribed actions to amend the state constitution as needed before implementing it.


Finally, 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.”


JWK


When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
:lmao:

Texas was IN NO FUCKING WAY "disenfranchised" by what any other state did, don't sit here and peddle bullshit.

Texas had 38 Electoral Votes when the election started; it had the same 38 Electoral Votes when it ended.
Texas state law provides that the winner of its state vote gets all those Electoral Votes, it did so.
Texas' 38 Electoral Votes for Rump were duly counted in the Electoral College vote of December 14.
Those 38 Electoral Votes were duly reported to Congress on January 6, after the seditionistas were neutralized.

THE FUCKING END.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
It’s important to remember that those two justices said they would allow Texas to file its bill of complaint, they also said they would not give Texas the remedy it was seeking—to invalidate the four states’ electors chosen by the votes of their citizens.

It is also important to remember that Texas, in its prayer for relief, asks the following:

"H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

And just what is the other relief which Justice Thomas recommends?



See: Justice Thomas' OPINION AND RECOMENDATION

Thomas wrote:

"These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”

And . . .

“One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,”

Thomas also wrote:

“An election system lacks clear rules when, as here, different officials dispute who has authority to set or change those rules. This kind of dispute brews confusion because voters may not know which rules to follow. Even worse, with more than one system of rules in place, competing candidates might each declare victory under different sets of rules.”

It is becoming more obvious as each day passes that a majority on our Supreme Court is intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion and rebellion by refusing to abide by and enforce the provisions of our Constitution.



JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
That’s fine, Justice Thomas is entitled to his opinion as are the other justices.
I thought your bone of contention was the Supreme Court " . . . said they would not give Texas the remedy it was seeking—to invalidate the four states’ electors chosen by the votes of their citizens."

But, the fact is, Texas, in its prayer for relief, also asked:

"H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

Is the relief which Justice Thomas was willing to offer, as documented above, not "just and proper"?

JWK
There was no “bone of contention”.

Justice Thomas is entitled to his opinion but it was not agreed with by the majority of the court.
You never answered the question: Is the relief which Justice Thomas was willing to offer, as documented above, not "just and proper"?

JWK

Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
No it was not “just and proper”.

So, you have no problem with the Supreme Court refusing to adjudicate and rectify illegal federal election activates in one state which in effect disenfranchises voters in all other States?

JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores the rule of law and our written Constitutions, Federal and State, and assents to acts contrary to the rule of law, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
 

Jets

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
2,277
Reaction score
1,058
Points
210
It’s important to remember that those two justices said they would allow Texas to file its bill of complaint, they also said they would not give Texas the remedy it was seeking—to invalidate the four states’ electors chosen by the votes of their citizens.

It is also important to remember that Texas, in its prayer for relief, asks the following:

"H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

And just what is the other relief which Justice Thomas recommends?



See: Justice Thomas' OPINION AND RECOMENDATION

Thomas wrote:

"These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”

And . . .

“One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,”

Thomas also wrote:

“An election system lacks clear rules when, as here, different officials dispute who has authority to set or change those rules. This kind of dispute brews confusion because voters may not know which rules to follow. Even worse, with more than one system of rules in place, competing candidates might each declare victory under different sets of rules.”

It is becoming more obvious as each day passes that a majority on our Supreme Court is intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion and rebellion by refusing to abide by and enforce the provisions of our Constitution.



JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
That’s fine, Justice Thomas is entitled to his opinion as are the other justices.
I thought your bone of contention was the Supreme Court " . . . said they would not give Texas the remedy it was seeking—to invalidate the four states’ electors chosen by the votes of their citizens."

But, the fact is, Texas, in its prayer for relief, also asked:

"H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

Is the relief which Justice Thomas was willing to offer, as documented above, not "just and proper"?

JWK
There was no “bone of contention”.

Justice Thomas is entitled to his opinion but it was not agreed with by the majority of the court.
You never answered the question: Is the relief which Justice Thomas was willing to offer, as documented above, not "just and proper"?

JWK

Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
No it was not “just and proper”.

So, you have no problem with the Supreme Court refusing to adjudicate and rectify illegal federal election activates in one state which in effect disenfranchises voters in all other States?

JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores the rule of law and our written Constitutions, Federal and State, and assents to acts contrary to the rule of law, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
Correct.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
Texas was IN NO FUCKING WAY "disenfranchised" by what any other state did, don't sit here and peddle bullshit.
When over a million illegally cast ballots are added to a State’s federal election results, as has happened in Pennsylvania, those illegal votes dilute the weight of citizens’ legal votes in every other state by the number of illegal votes counted in Pennsylvania, and to this degree disenfranchise citizens who have cast legal votes by the number of illegal votes counted.

In regard to voter disenfranchisement, see Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006)

“Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised. “[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964).”

JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores the rule of law and our written Constitutions, Federal and State, and assents to acts contrary to the rule of law, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
It’s important to remember that those two justices said they would allow Texas to file its bill of complaint, they also said they would not give Texas the remedy it was seeking—to invalidate the four states’ electors chosen by the votes of their citizens.

It is also important to remember that Texas, in its prayer for relief, asks the following:

"H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

And just what is the other relief which Justice Thomas recommends?



See: Justice Thomas' OPINION AND RECOMENDATION

Thomas wrote:

"These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”

And . . .

“One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,”

Thomas also wrote:

“An election system lacks clear rules when, as here, different officials dispute who has authority to set or change those rules. This kind of dispute brews confusion because voters may not know which rules to follow. Even worse, with more than one system of rules in place, competing candidates might each declare victory under different sets of rules.”

It is becoming more obvious as each day passes that a majority on our Supreme Court is intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion and rebellion by refusing to abide by and enforce the provisions of our Constitution.



JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
That’s fine, Justice Thomas is entitled to his opinion as are the other justices.
I thought your bone of contention was the Supreme Court " . . . said they would not give Texas the remedy it was seeking—to invalidate the four states’ electors chosen by the votes of their citizens."

But, the fact is, Texas, in its prayer for relief, also asked:

"H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

Is the relief which Justice Thomas was willing to offer, as documented above, not "just and proper"?

JWK
There was no “bone of contention”.

Justice Thomas is entitled to his opinion but it was not agreed with by the majority of the court.
You never answered the question: Is the relief which Justice Thomas was willing to offer, as documented above, not "just and proper"?

JWK

Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
No it was not “just and proper”.
Well, as many of us suspected, you embrace the kind of elections which take place in Cuba, Venezuela, etc.

JWK
 

Jets

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
2,277
Reaction score
1,058
Points
210
It’s important to remember that those two justices said they would allow Texas to file its bill of complaint, they also said they would not give Texas the remedy it was seeking—to invalidate the four states’ electors chosen by the votes of their citizens.

It is also important to remember that Texas, in its prayer for relief, asks the following:

"H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

And just what is the other relief which Justice Thomas recommends?



See: Justice Thomas' OPINION AND RECOMENDATION

Thomas wrote:

"These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”

And . . .

“One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,”

Thomas also wrote:

“An election system lacks clear rules when, as here, different officials dispute who has authority to set or change those rules. This kind of dispute brews confusion because voters may not know which rules to follow. Even worse, with more than one system of rules in place, competing candidates might each declare victory under different sets of rules.”

It is becoming more obvious as each day passes that a majority on our Supreme Court is intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion and rebellion by refusing to abide by and enforce the provisions of our Constitution.



JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
That’s fine, Justice Thomas is entitled to his opinion as are the other justices.
I thought your bone of contention was the Supreme Court " . . . said they would not give Texas the remedy it was seeking—to invalidate the four states’ electors chosen by the votes of their citizens."

But, the fact is, Texas, in its prayer for relief, also asked:

"H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

Is the relief which Justice Thomas was willing to offer, as documented above, not "just and proper"?

JWK
There was no “bone of contention”.

Justice Thomas is entitled to his opinion but it was not agreed with by the majority of the court.
You never answered the question: Is the relief which Justice Thomas was willing to offer, as documented above, not "just and proper"?

JWK

Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
No it was not “just and proper”.
Well, as many of us suspected, you embrace the kind of elections which take place in Cuba, Venezuela, etc.

JWK
White Flag accepted

Have a nice day. :)
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
It’s important to remember that those two justices said they would allow Texas to file its bill of complaint, they also said they would not give Texas the remedy it was seeking—to invalidate the four states’ electors chosen by the votes of their citizens.

It is also important to remember that Texas, in its prayer for relief, asks the following:

"H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

And just what is the other relief which Justice Thomas recommends?



See: Justice Thomas' OPINION AND RECOMENDATION

Thomas wrote:

"These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”

And . . .

“One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,”

Thomas also wrote:

“An election system lacks clear rules when, as here, different officials dispute who has authority to set or change those rules. This kind of dispute brews confusion because voters may not know which rules to follow. Even worse, with more than one system of rules in place, competing candidates might each declare victory under different sets of rules.”

It is becoming more obvious as each day passes that a majority on our Supreme Court is intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion and rebellion by refusing to abide by and enforce the provisions of our Constitution.



JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
That’s fine, Justice Thomas is entitled to his opinion as are the other justices.
I thought your bone of contention was the Supreme Court " . . . said they would not give Texas the remedy it was seeking—to invalidate the four states’ electors chosen by the votes of their citizens."

But, the fact is, Texas, in its prayer for relief, also asked:

"H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

Is the relief which Justice Thomas was willing to offer, as documented above, not "just and proper"?

JWK
There was no “bone of contention”.

Justice Thomas is entitled to his opinion but it was not agreed with by the majority of the court.
You never answered the question: Is the relief which Justice Thomas was willing to offer, as documented above, not "just and proper"?

JWK

Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
No it was not “just and proper”.
Well, as many of us suspected, you embrace the kind of elections which take place in Cuba, Venezuela, etc.

JWK
White Flag accepted

Have a nice day. :)


.

No surrendering on this end. You are the one surrendering to the corruption of our federal election process, as you just admitted!

JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores the rule of law and our written Constitutions, Federal and State, and assents to acts contrary to the rule of law, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top