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

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
20,076
Reaction score
3,875
Points
290
No they were not. The ballots were checked by other workers and then placed in boxes to scan them. This has been thoroughly debunked.
Because that's what you do with ballots.
You "check" them then put them in a big suitcase and hide them under a table for processing when
no one is around.
They were placed in a container and putting them under the table was not hiding them. Bottom line is that the number of votes were consistent with the number of ballots. They were checked by workers with onservers raising no objection.
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
20,382
Reaction score
10,847
Points
1,265
They were placed in a container and putting them under the table was not hiding them. Bottom line is that the number of votes were consistent with the number of ballots. They were checked by workers with onservers raising no objection.
Whatever you need to tell yourself.
 
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."
Actually that's not "the evidence" --- which after all does not exist ----
No-excuse mail in ballots are in violation of PA's Constitution.

JWK
And that's for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to decide, not you.
And the Pennsylvania Supreme Court gave every indication that no-excuse mail in ballots violate PA's Constitution.

JWK
Link?
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT

CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR Filed: November 28, 2020


"I agree with the majority that injunctive relief restraining certification of the votes of Pennsylvanians cast in the 2020 general election should not have been granted and is unavailable in the present circumstances. As the majority relates, there has been too much good-faith reliance, by the electorate, on the no-excuse mail-in voting regime created by Act 77 to warrant judicial consideration of the extreme and untenable remedies proposed by Appellees.1 Accordingly, I join the per curiam Order to the extent that it vacates the preliminary injunction implemented by the Commonwealth Court.2

That said, there is a component of Appellees’ original complaint, filed in the Commonwealth Court, which seeks declaratory relief and is unresolved by the above remedial assessment. Additionally, I find that the relevant substantive challenge raised by Appellees presents troublesome questions about the constitutional validity of the new mail-in voting scheme." 3

One of Appellants’ main responses is that the citizenry, and perhaps future generations, are forever bound by the Legislature’s decision to insert, into Act 77 itself, a 180-day time restriction curtailing challenges to the substantive import of the enactment. See Act of Oct. 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77, §13(3). However, I find this assessment to be substantially problematic.4 Further, as Appellees observe, ongoing amendments to an unconstitutional enactment so insulated from judicial review may have a compounding effect by exacerbating the disparity between what the Constitution requires and the law as it is being enforced. Thus, Appellees raise a colorable challenge to the viability of this sort of limitation, which can result in effectively amending the Constitution via means other those which the charter itself sanctions. See PA. CONST., art. XI (Amendments).

To the degree that Appellees wish to pursue this challenge in the ordinary course, upon the realization that their proposed injunctive remedies will be considered no further, I would allow them to do so in the Commonwealth Court upon a remand. In this regard, relative to the declaratory component of the request for relief, I also would not invoke the doctrine of laches, since the present challenge arises in the first election cycle in which no-excuse mail-in voting has been utilized. Moreover, “laches and prejudice can never be permitted to amend the Constitution.” Sprague v. Casey, 520 Pa. 38, 47, 550 A.2d 184, 188 (1988).

Consistent with my position throughout this election cycle, I believe that, to the extent possible, we should apply more ordinary and orderly methods of judicial consideration, since far too much nuance is lost by treating every election matter as exigent and worthy of this Court’s immediate resolution. In this respect, I would honor the Commonwealth Court’s traditional role as the court of original and original appellate jurisdiction for most election matters. Finally, I am decidedly against yet another award of extraordinary jurisdiction at the Secretary’s behest.

Justice Mundy joins this Concurring and Dissenting Statement."


JWK
Both are Republicans.
And what does political party affiliation have to do with the fact that no-excuse mail in ballots violate PA's Constitution?

JWK



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

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
24,503
Reaction score
8,116
Points
465
And what does political party affiliation have to do with the fact that no-excuse mail in ballots violate PA's Constitution?
It very well might, but that'll be an issue for the next election.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
And what does political party affiliation have to do with the fact that no-excuse mail in ballots violate PA's Constitution?
It very well might, but that'll be an issue for the next election.
Actually, it's a constitutional question which needs to be addressed by PA's Supreme Court. And members of the PA Supreme Court have already indicated no-excuse mail in ballots violate PA's Constitution, as I already have pointed out.

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.
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
24,503
Reaction score
8,116
Points
465
Actually, it's a constitutional question which needs to be addressed by PA's Supreme Court. And members of the PA Supreme Court have already indicated no-excuse mail in ballots violate PA's Constitution, as I already have pointed out.
Agree. They should decide on the issue so that it’s settled well before next election and not after millions of ballots have already been cast.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
20,076
Reaction score
3,875
Points
290
They were placed in a container and putting them under the table was not hiding them. Bottom line is that the number of votes were consistent with the number of ballots. They were checked by workers with onservers raising no objection.
Whatever you need to tell yourself.
You are the ones who are delusional because you cannot accept Trump's loss. It has been looked at by election officials and they found nothing wrong. The number of votes and the number of voters were consistent. That is cold hard fact.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
Actually, it's a constitutional question which needs to be addressed by PA's Supreme Court. And members of the PA Supreme Court have already indicated no-excuse mail in ballots violate PA's Constitution, as I already have pointed out.
Agree. They should decide on the issue so that it’s settled well before next election and not after millions of ballots have already been cast.
Justice Thomas is in agreement! His written opinion is spot on LINK

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.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top