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

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,497
Reaction score
22,517
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
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.
BULLSHIT.

Check the count. Texas gets 38 Electoral Votes. It cast all 38 of them. Pennsylvania gets 20 Electoral Votes. It cast all 20.

We can continue to do this for all 57 states. It ain't gonna change.


YOU FUCKING LOST, GROW THE FUCK UP AND DEAL WITH IT
 
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.
BULLSHIT.

Check the count. Texas gets 38 Electoral Votes. It cast all 38 of them. Pennsylvania gets 20 Electoral Votes. It cast all 20.

We can continue to do this for all 57 states. It ain't gonna change.


YOU FUCKING LOST, GROW THE FUCK UP AND DEAL WITH IT
No. The American People lose when illegal voting practices are allowed.

A million votes in Pennsylvania's federal election most certainly could determine which presidential candidate is awarded Pennsylvania's electoral college votes and who wins its Congressional seats, and these choices in Pennsylvania will affect the making of federal public policy which in turn affects every State in the Union and the people in every state in the Union.


I see you still embrace the kind of voting which takes place in Cuba and Venezuela.
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.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,497
Reaction score
22,517
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
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.
BULLSHIT.

Check the count. Texas gets 38 Electoral Votes. It cast all 38 of them. Pennsylvania gets 20 Electoral Votes. It cast all 20.

We can continue to do this for all 57 states. It ain't gonna change.


YOU FUCKING LOST, GROW THE FUCK UP AND DEAL WITH IT
No. The American People lose when illegal voting practices are allowed.

A million votes in Pennsylvania's federal election most certainly could determine which presidential candidate is awarded Pennsylvania's electoral college votes and who wins its Congressional seats, and these choices in Pennsylvania will affect the making of federal public policy which in turn affects every State in the Union and the people in every state in the Union.


I see you still embrace the kind of voting which takes place in Cuba and Venezuela.
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.
Go fuck yourself, Cult-0f-Ignorance lemming. Once AGAIN Pennsylvania casts its 20 votes however it casts them, Texas casts its 38 however it casts them, and the two are NOT FUCKING RELATED. Neither one influences the other. Pennsylvania's and Texas' electoral votes went to TWO DIFFERENT CANDIDATES.

Furthermore, even in your hallucinatory toy-world of self-delusion where you can just switch entire state votes you wish had gone differently, even if you ILLEGALLY reversed Pennsylvania's vote and sent them to Rump in contradiction to the voters of that Commonwealth ---- RUMP STILL LOSES, Dumbass.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
10,448
Reaction score
2,144
Points
160
Location
North Carolina
.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

JWK

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



JWK
The answer is that one state can't sue another state for how it ran its election. Especially under the guise that the defendant states violated their constitution while, at the same time, Texas was violating its.
Why can't they--------if GEORGIA cheated which it did, then my vote in florida is meaningless. I should have the right to sue.
For the record Turtle Shit show us the evidence that proves Georgia cheated.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
20,077
Reaction score
3,875
Points
290
Absolutely Yes they were. They should have ignored the 81 million voters and the Electoral College that voted for Biden, and just given it to Trump. No need for Democracy in a Democracy.
You don't seem to mind ignoring the will of voters as long as you get your way.
The illegal actions of five significant swing states swung the election to Inert Joe Biden and that suits you just
fine. What are the point of laws at all when cretins like you approve of ignoring them?
There was nothing illegal. No laws were ignored.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
20,077
Reaction score
3,875
Points
290
Additionally, and with respect to the Robert's Court obvious dereliction of duty to hear the Texas Lawsuit, this dereliction of duty was eloquently summed up in an amicus curiae brief by Citizen’s United:

"When one state allows the Manner in which Presidential Electors be chosen to be determined by anyone other than the state legislature, that state acts in breach of the presuppositions on which the Union is based. Each state is not isolated from the rest—rather, all states are interdependent. Our nation’s operational principle is E pluribus unum. Each state has a duty to other states to abide by this and other reciprocal obligations built into Constitution. While defendant states may view this suit as an infringement of its sovereignty, it is not, as the defendant states surrendered their sovereignty when they agreed to abide by Article II, § 1. Each state depends on other states to adhere to minimum constitutional standards in areas where it ceded its sovereignty to the union—and if those standards are not met, then the responsibility to enforce those standards falls to this Court."
You have to realize that every state can chose it's own method for selecting the presidential electors. From letting the people chose by popular vote, to having the legislature chose them by whatever means they see fit, to not choosing electors at all, and sitting out the election, like what happened in the first presidential election.

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

Any challenge to the way a state runs it's election gives standing to the candidates, and the residents of that state. It doesn't give standing to anybody in the whole entire world with an interest in the outcome of the US presidential election.
Apples and oranges. The issue isn't choosing presidential electors but the actual voting itself.
Each state can choose for itself how that is to be done but Pennsylvania's election laws have to be
formed by their own state legislature....not in an ad hoc individual way by a single individual, as
Pennsylvania did.

That's illegal and unconstitutional, son.
There is nothing illegal and unconstitutional. Go back to school idiot.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has the right to interpret the Pennsylvania constitution. If the legislature does not like that interpretation then they can try to change the law.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
20,077
Reaction score
3,875
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
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.
It has been proven to no one.
 

Lastamender

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
11,363
Reaction score
6,393
Points
1,050
.

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.
It has been proven to no one.
It has been proven to me and 100 million others.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
20,077
Reaction score
3,875
Points
290
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?
You are a piece of garbage that needs to be further trashed. Segregation was a reality unlike your fantasy delusions of fraud that no state official or US Attorney has seen.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
20,077
Reaction score
3,875
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
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.
It has been proven to no one.
It has been proven to me and 100 million others.
It has been proven only to Trump robots like you.
 

Lastamender

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
11,363
Reaction score
6,393
Points
1,050
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?
You are a piece of garbage that needs to be further trashed. Segregation was a reality unlike your fantasy delusions of fraud that no state official or US Attorney has seen.
They have not seen them because they have told not to look at the evidence. The guilt is obvious and the lies are not working.
 

Lastamender

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
11,363
Reaction score
6,393
Points
1,050
.

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.
It has been proven to no one.
It has been proven to me and 100 million others.
It has been proven only to Trump robots like you.
You should not talk about robots the way you post.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
20,077
Reaction score
3,875
Points
290
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?
You are a piece of garbage that needs to be further trashed. Segregation was a reality unlike your fantasy delusions of fraud that no state official or US Attorney has seen.
They have not seen them because they have told not to look at the evidence. The guilt is obvious and the lies are not working.
Barr was far more explicit in corrupting the DOJ to protect Trump. He een sent out a memo to the US Attorneys to look for elewction fraud. They saw none. That includes 2 US Attorneys in Georigia. Your lies are not working.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
20,077
Reaction score
3,875
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
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.
It has been proven to no one.
It has been proven to me and 100 million others.
It has been proven only to Trump robots like you.
You should not talk about robots the way you post.
The way I post is I post facts. You post conspiracdy theories that have been debunked. You are a lying cheat who supported the stealing of a election which included a assault on the Capitol. That is how dictators in Cuba and Venezuela work.
 

Lastamender

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
11,363
Reaction score
6,393
Points
1,050
.

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.
It has been proven to no one.
It has been proven to me and 100 million others.
It has been proven only to Trump robots like you.
You should not talk about robots the way you post.
The way I post is I post facts. You post conspiracdy theories that have been debunked. You are a lying cheat who supported the stealing of a election which included a assault on the Capitol. That is how dictators in Cuba and Venezuela work.
The 200,000 ballots that went from NY to PA. has not been debunked. One of the many unanswered questions like establishing chain of custody. It still has not been established for Fulton county in GA.

And the conspiracy was the fraud and now the cover up. You people could not act more guilty if you tried.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,497
Reaction score
22,517
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
.

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.
It has been proven to no one.
It has been proven to me and 100 million others.
Those who fuel on self-delusion, also as part of that imaging "100 million others" are fueling on the same shit.
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
20,382
Reaction score
10,847
Points
1,265
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?
You are a piece of garbage that needs to be further trashed. Segregation was a reality unlike your fantasy delusions of fraud that no state official or US Attorney has seen.
You calling someone "garbage" is like the hippo calling a hog overweight.
I don't recall saying segregation (which woke colleges are bringing back) was a fantasy.
You must be visiting with your Old Grandad again.

And your claims that no state officials have pointed out election fraud is an outright fantasy.
You must be extra special stupid. The officials in Texas and twenty three other states disagree
with your amazing ignorance.
 

Hidden

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2020
Messages
2,060
Reaction score
887
Points
163
Location
Texas
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.
Lot's of affidavits and Newsmax videos, yet not a single person willing to testify under oath. Not. a. one.
 

22lcidw

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
18,792
Reaction score
6,412
Points
345
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.
BULLSHIT.

Check the count. Texas gets 38 Electoral Votes. It cast all 38 of them. Pennsylvania gets 20 Electoral Votes. It cast all 20.

We can continue to do this for all 57 states. It ain't gonna change.


YOU FUCKING LOST, GROW THE FUCK UP AND DEAL WITH IT
No. The American People lose when illegal voting practices are allowed.

A million votes in Pennsylvania's federal election most certainly could determine which presidential candidate is awarded Pennsylvania's electoral college votes and who wins its Congressional seats, and these choices in Pennsylvania will affect the making of federal public policy which in turn affects every State in the Union and the people in every state in the Union.


I see you still embrace the kind of voting which takes place in Cuba and Venezuela.
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.
Go fuck yourself, Cult-0f-Ignorance lemming. Once AGAIN Pennsylvania casts its 20 votes however it casts them, Texas casts its 38 however it casts them, and the two are NOT FUCKING RELATED. Neither one influences the other. Pennsylvania's and Texas' electoral votes went to TWO DIFFERENT CANDIDATES.

Furthermore, even in your hallucinatory toy-world of self-delusion where you can just switch entire state votes you wish had gone differently, even if you ILLEGALLY reversed Pennsylvania's vote and sent them to Rump in contradiction to the voters of that Commonwealth ---- RUMP STILL LOSES, Dumbass.
At some point we will end up with Prog candidates running against each other only pushing agendas to degree. It will be funny if you end up taking the one who is less worse in that.
 

Lastamender

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
11,363
Reaction score
6,393
Points
1,050
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.
Lot's of affidavits and Newsmax videos, yet not a single person willing to testify under oath. Not. a. one.
You are going to have to prove because an affidavit carries the same penalty for perjury. Now name just one of them.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top