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

Lastamender

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
11,363
Reaction score
6,393
Points
1,050
You are going to have to prove because an affidavit carries the same penalty for perjury. Now name just one of them.
To much about why those affidavits don't get ruled as perjury for me to copy and paste. Here's the full article:

Sorry the WP is useless if you want the truth. I do not need fact checkers to know they are lying. It is all they have done since Trump announced he was running the first time.

I looked at your article and it did not say one thing about people refusing to testify. You lied. The article is also extremely biased and reaches unproven conclusions. In short, Democratic propaganda.
 
Last edited:

Lastamender

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
11,363
Reaction score
6,393
Points
1,050
Months after the election, credible evidence of voting fraud remains unexplained, raising doubts over the election results. One America’s Pearson Sharp explains how Democrats and lawmakers could finally put the question to rest.


Why do they refuse to settle this and put the citizens minds at ease? Maybe obvious guilt is stopping them. That is about the only answer any honest person would come to.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
20,078
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.
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.
You are nothing but a cuckoo. There is no conspiracy and you couldn't sound like a bigger idiot than you tried.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
20,078
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.
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.
Your allegations about John Roberts are a fantasy. To equate a reality as in segregation with your fantasy is sying segregation was a fantasy. The fact is that every Supreme Court justice Trump nominated voted against him. You are garbage trying to steal the votes of voters who voted for Biden.

You are the one who is extra stupid. State election offricials have found no evidence of fraud. The DOJ has found no evidence of frraud. The officials in Texas and 23 other states are fascist pigs. You and they are the ignorant ones.
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
20,382
Reaction score
10,847
Points
1,265
Your allegations about John Roberts are a fantasy. To equate a reality as in segregation with your fantasy is sying segregation was a fantasy. The fact is that every Supreme Court justice Trump nominated voted against him. You are garbage trying to steal the votes of voters who voted for Biden.

You are the one who is extra stupid. State election offricials have found no evidence of fraud. The DOJ has found no evidence of frraud. The officials in Texas and 23 other states are fascist pigs. You and they are the ignorant ones.
Okay. I see Jim Beam came over to visit your Old Grandad while he was there.
Sounds like the three of your make for a bunch of Wild Turkeys.
 
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.
Go fuck yourself, Cult-0f-Ignorance lemming. Once AGAIN ......
.


.

Well, it didn't take long to resort the adolescent name calling and profanity.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
 
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
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.
You are nothing but a cuckoo. There is no conspiracy
Of course there is no conspiracy . . . it was done right out in the open!



JWK

The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership, detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
 

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.
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.
Fortunately for me then, I wasn't even alive in 1924 when the last 'Prog candidate" ran, so it isn't gonna come up.
 

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 ......
.


.

Well, it didn't take long to resort the adolescent name calling and profanity.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
And it took even less long for you to shit on this board and insult everybody's intelligence with this Rumbot denialist diarrhea.

You want respect? EARN IT. All you've done here is dig.
 

Lastamender

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


.

Well, it didn't take long to resort the adolescent name calling and profanity.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
And it took even less long for you to shit on this board and insult everybody's intelligence with this Rumbot denialist diarrhea.

You want respect? EARN IT. All you've done here is dig.
You can see the fraud with your own eyes. Someone who denies what he or she sees has serious problems.
 

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 ......
.


.

Well, it didn't take long to resort the adolescent name calling and profanity.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
And it took even less long for you to shit on this board and insult everybody's intelligence with this Rumbot denialist diarrhea.

You want respect? EARN IT. All you've done here is dig.
You can see the fraud with your own eyes. Someone who denies what he or she sees has serious problems.
That's what I've been telling you for three months now.
 

Lastamender

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


.

Well, it didn't take long to resort the adolescent name calling and profanity.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
And it took even less long for you to shit on this board and insult everybody's intelligence with this Rumbot denialist diarrhea.

You want respect? EARN IT. All you've done here is dig.
You can see the fraud with your own eyes. Someone who denies what he or she sees has serious problems.
That's what I've been telling you for three months now.
Then your condition has not changed. You are able to go out not trusting what you see? Talk about life on the edge. :ahole-1:
 
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.
Go fuck yourself, Cult-0f-Ignorance lemming. Once AGAIN ......
.


.

Well, it didn't take long to resort the adolescent name calling and profanity.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
And it took even less long for you to shit on this board and insult everybody's intelligence with this Rumbot denialist diarrhea.

You want respect? EARN IT. All you've done here is dig.
So, now you have taken the liberty to speak for everyone else in this thread, not to mention you have failed to refute what I have posted.

:rolleyes:

JWK

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

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 ......
.


.

Well, it didn't take long to resort the adolescent name calling and profanity.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
And it took even less long for you to shit on this board and insult everybody's intelligence with this Rumbot denialist diarrhea.

You want respect? EARN IT. All you've done here is dig.
So, now you have taken the liberty to speak for everyone else in this thread, not to mention you have failed to refute what I have posted.

:rolleyes:

JWK

Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
I already refuted your goofy-ass comic book fantasy shit when I got here, Pilgrim. What's more, when you first came to this site you were copying screeds from all manner of crackpot sources and mass cross-posting them, and I'm the one who busted you for it, so I know exactly who and what you are, ergo bite me. As I said, if you want any respect the first thing to do is stop posting fucking BULLSHIT that everybody knows IS bullshit. You've got a deep hole to climb out of, Hunior.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
20,078
Reaction score
3,875
Points
290
Your allegations about John Roberts are a fantasy. To equate a reality as in segregation with your fantasy is sying segregation was a fantasy. The fact is that every Supreme Court justice Trump nominated voted against him. You are garbage trying to steal the votes of voters who voted for Biden.

You are the one who is extra stupid. State election offricials have found no evidence of fraud. The DOJ has found no evidence of frraud. The officials in Texas and 23 other states are fascist pigs. You and they are the ignorant ones.
Okay. I see Jim Beam came over to visit your Old Grandad while he was there.
Sounds like the three of your make for a bunch of Wild Turkeys.
You are just a naturally stupid individual. You are a loon.
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
20,382
Reaction score
10,847
Points
1,265
.

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.
You are nothing but a cuckoo. There is no conspiracy
Of course there is no conspiracy . . . it was done right out in the open!



JWK

The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership, detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
Thank you for the video. Watching what happened in Fulton County State Farm arena after all workers and
observers were sent home due to a non existent plumbing "emergency" is priceless.

Boxes of ballots were produced from a hiding place and five female workers that were detained just kept on processing ballots for several hours for Joe Biden and, magically, by the next morning Trump's lead vanished
and brain damaged Joe never relinquished that lead.

Is this what a "clean fair" election looks like? My ass it does!
for several more hours with no one but the security cameras recording their
 
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
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.
You are nothing but a cuckoo. There is no conspiracy
Of course there is no conspiracy . . . it was done right out in the open!



JWK

The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership, detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
Thank you for the video. Watching what happened in Fulton County State Farm arena after all workers and
observers were sent home due to a non existent plumbing "emergency" is priceless.

Boxes of ballots were produced from a hiding place and five female workers that were detained just kept on processing ballots for several hours for Joe Biden and, magically, by the next morning Trump's lead vanished
and brain damaged Joe never relinquished that lead.

Is this what a "clean fair" election looks like? My ass it does!
for several more hours with no one but the security cameras recording their
The evidence makes one wonder why a majority on our Supreme Court in its order refused to give an evidentiary hearing in the Texas lawsuit, and why they lied by asserting "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections."


The notion that “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections” falls flat on its face when taking into consideration what our Supreme Court has forcefully declared in the past, and I have documented HERE.

Had the Supreme Court done its job and heard the Texas lawsuit, the January 6th uprising may never have occurred. Instead, a majority on the court chose to engage in nonfeasance and malfeasance, leaving 73 million people without a recourse to resolve illegal voting activity in a federal election.

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 established rule of law, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
.
 

Desperado

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
33,908
Reaction score
7,892
Points
1,140
.

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
They were cowards and afraid of what they would find. They were even more afraid of the actions they would have to take when they found that there was foul play,. That is why they refused to hear the case,
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top