Texas case importance (accepted to take case 6-3) - in the end if Biden wins - be afraid - be very afraid
- Thread starter kjfreeze
- Start date
You still waiting for them to develop a flu vaccine ghosty??
I notice you didn't address any of my comments by the way. Just like a good lil' trumpette, you duck and dodge.
Winners don't have to address losers. Notice Trump has Barred Hiden from the WH.
I hear Gitmo is open, tho.
So @sadgator has no idea what the case is about.
Why would the SC take a 'nonsense' case? Are they also in on the conspiracy to subvert the Constitution and steal the election from Hiden?
How deep is your crazy hole?
SCOTUS at this time has not taken up the case. It is docketed. Not the same at all. They can look at the briefs and simply not invite to file. End of story. They may also leave to file and dismiss on the most obvious grounds that states cannot require other states to adhere to their election statutes any more than Calif. can dictate gun laws to Texas. They can do this without even taking oral arguments. SCOTUS may choose deny original jurisdiction grounds Tex. is trying to sell. This is likely why the Tx. Solicitor General is not involved-- too embarrassing, and he'll later face SCOTUS and want his credibility intact. If they deny original jurisdiction, the case goes back to lower courts where virtually no evidence has been accepted as court admissible in any state. I'd guess they don't invite to file and call it over.
When it comes to federal elections, you better damn well believe that states can hold other states accountable for following the rules they put in place because it effects the people in both states.
Seriously, how many times he can be wrong before it’s mathematically impossible?
Ask Biden about mathematical improbabilites 🤣😊
Why bother, he couldn’t pronounce mathematically or improbability
Show me any legal precedent in say the last 100 yrs. where this happened. Keep in mind this case is not providing evidence of fraud, malfeasance, or miscount. If you can do so, I'll give this case a small chance of getting to oral.
There is no precedent because this is the first. However, in 2000 SCOTUS ruled that all 67 counties in Florida had to recount using the same rules.
That same logic will apply in this case.
But gun laws, abortion rights, divorces, etc. are all the same in every state... not even close. Voter regulations are state laws. A Tx voter has no legal effect on the voter from Mich. Tx voters provide Tx EC members, Mich voters have no bearing on Tx EC.
Not sure there’s really been anything like this since maybe 1878 with Rutherford B Hayes?
Well there is not specific clause in the Constitution to cover abortion rights, divorces, but there is one for gun laws which is why they keep getting challenged and thrown out all the time.
Gun laws, abortion rights, divorces, etc. are state issues. A federal election where one state doesn’t follow its own rules put in place disenfranchises other states.
You’d be correct if it was a state election but you are wrong once again as this is a federal election.
He voted for a guy that failed 3rd grade. We aren't dealing with Mensa candidates here.
I keep forgetting that little tidbit. My logical brain is telling “how are you not getting this? How are you do wrong?”
A voter in Mich. does not counter or disenfranchise a voter in TX. Each state selects their own EC. Popular vote is considered at a state level not across states. Even state EC may be selected in various ways and not even uniformly in all 50 states.
You must be tired from trying to climb that same muddy hill. You see, when the hill is muddy, you keep sliding down. In other words, why don't you stop trying to convince yourself and us that you are correct and follow the logic and the overwhelming evidence of voter fraud and misdeeds against the Constitution.
@Nolec you spend 90% of your time here arguing against points that no one made.
The other 10% of the time is spent contradicting yourself.
He likes to argue points that no one made when he's wrong and can't admt it. The ole 'fact checker' ploy, let's 'fact check' a claim that was never made, then claim it proves a LEGIT claim was false.
How about a minor wager, say $ 1,000 or add zeros. I hope you didn't go to law school at UF. No chance that SCOTUS takes this. Never has any plaintiff had worse lawyers.
Thank you for proving my point. You haven't a clue what will happen to us all in American if this cretin slithers his way to the Presidency.
Beijing Biden promises economic stagnation and higher crime rates.
The U. S. average IQ is 98. Any wonder we find ourselves where we are?
Biden cannot draw 5 cars to a Golden Chick drive thru. Biden did not receive 80 million legal votes. Pattern recognition cannot be taught.
The U. S. average IQ is 98. Any wonder we find ourselves where we are?
Biden cannot draw 5 cars to a Golden Chick drive thru. Biden did not receive 80 million legal votes. Pattern recognition cannot be taught.
That is false, if one state doesn’t follow its own election rules that were set forth by the legislature then that does indeed disenfranchises due to it being a federal election.
Again, if this was just a state issue then you’re right but it’s not, it’s a federal issue and that makes you wrong.
And lower courts have already established the merits of the case. Best of all, the Constitution is completely on the side of the states here.
Anytime @Nolec claims there's no case, that's when you know it's on.
No crime has been claimed in the brief to SCOTUS. Wecher has no idea as usual.
Disagree. I doubt SCOTUS even takes up the case so you likely won't get a ruling on it.
No evidence needed for the claims. Lower courts have validated the claims.
Sorry,
The Constitution
Blind faith will get you into trouble. Right now I see you being blindfolded and walking to a cliff while being told no cliff exists. (I try to use analogies to present a simple picture for you to follow - you know - like baby picture books.)
I will be stunned if SCOTUS takes any action that changes the purported outcome of this election. I think it's much more likely that they will take action to protect, and normalize, future elections.
I do, however, believe that this election was stolen. Believe is underlined because i don't have proof. If I had proof, I wouldn't believe it, I would know it. See how that works?
If any of you would like to ask why I believe it was stolen, I'd be happy to have that conversation.
I do, however, believe that this election was stolen. Believe is underlined because i don't have proof. If I had proof, I wouldn't believe it, I would know it. See how that works?
If any of you would like to ask why I believe it was stolen, I'd be happy to have that conversation.
mother, can you at least be honest enough to agree that what you are saying will happen, has been happening with Trump the whole four years he ha been in office.
Similar threads
