He also claimed to be a billionaire before making the mistake of outing himself to be like “the rest of us” in subsequent posts.
He did that on something else as well. Maybe @GhostOfMatchesMalone remembers? Point is, he has proven himself to be FOS.
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
He also claimed to be a billionaire before making the mistake of outing himself to be like “the rest of us” in subsequent posts.
He did that on something else as well. Maybe @GhostOfMatchesMalone remembers? Point is, he has proven himself to be FOS.
Best I can determine, The Supreme Court has not accepted the Texas case as of 10:00 am this morning 12/10/2020.
edited 2:32
edited 2:32
Last edited:
You mean the Texas case? If so, you are correct. We should know today or tomorrow as they did require a response from the states by today I believe
I mean....he can't afford $9.99 a month to Rivals.
And there's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is he lied about it.
How many times has he said he's not the person he clams to be here?
I 'll wait for welcher to state which claims, court and state held that the Trump claims were valid. It has been about a month so he won't have to research back very far. I'm betting we get zero. All we need is the claims to SCOTUS that are already proven valid in a lower court.
The claims are clear: The states in question made changes to voter rules and regulations va EOs and courts, not through the state legislatures.
That violates the Elector's Clause of the Constitution. That's why I said there's no evidence that needs to be produced, we already have it. Its public knowledge what laws these states changed and how they did it.
In violation of the Constitution. You got hoodwinked. Again.
Mark Levin is a leading constitutional lawyer. Levin believes the Supremes just may not take up the Texas lawsuit for fear of the Left's threat to pack the Supreme Court.
If the Supremes refuse the Texas suit, welcome to New Venezuela.
If the Supremes refuse the Texas suit, welcome to New Venezuela.
Cant pack court if Trump is re-elected. Better fear the right becoming violent and going "french" after finally being pushed too far.
State issues that don't affect other states are not the actual concern of SCOTUS. If a states' lower court ruling on voting is appealed to the state's SC, it could be appealed/ taken up by SCOTUS. An unfair or discriminatory voting practice within a state might be taken up as well. An unfair/discriminatory application of voting practices has been taken up. Justice Douglas wrote extensively on the balance of state's freedoms to regulate voting, vs Scotus reach. Because there is no voting disenfranchisement of voters from other states this case is doomed.
Not sure I follow the logic. If Trump wins, no packing. If Hiden wins, packing commences.
Does Levin think if they don't take the case and Hiden wins, that Hiden will remember that and NOT pack the court? Surely he knows better.
The states that didn't follow the rules impacted the states that did, because this was a FEDERAL election. And their not following the rules violated the Constitution. Since it's a state vs state argument, SCOTUS has jurisdiction.
This could not be easier to understand.
Is it dawning on you yet ghosty?? It's all over for trump.
America will rise again from the mire that trump has trapped her in. And even though you'll hate every second of it, there will be a president who works for all Americans back in the WH, including people who don't agree with him. Joe Biden elevates America. You're welcome.
@GhostOfMatchesMalone
Remember when you told everyone there was no such thing as a flu vaccine?!?!?!?!
BWHAHAHAHAHAAH
You are arguing with a village idiot. He clearly doesn't understand the "equal protection law" stipulated in Amendment 14. The SCOTUS does, will they have the balls to enforce it is the bigger question.
Go grab your shine box and crayons boy. Trump saved America from the Skankipotimus. He also saved us from shitbird justices on the SCOTUS. I just hope they remember that.
You trumpettes can't get enough of that quid pro quo action eh?? So now they owe him?? They owe the American people, and their only loyalty is to the law.
And navi......SCOREBOARD
There are 50 sets of election laws for "Federal " elections. States do not tell other states their election laws for any elections. There exists broad Constitutional guidelines like one vote/person there is no universal state to state basis that SCOTUS has held to dictate absentee/mail-in voting. It must be equally applied to ALL voters in a particular state, but not necessarily the same state to state.
He knows the case is solid, he just doesn't want to admit it, so he's arguing points no one made, and trying to conflate them with points that were made.
My understanding is there are election laws of every state that are to be followed through the legislation within the framework of the Constitution. Changes have to be approved through the legislation of each state. In PA, the courts circumvented the legislation and made up laws. That is Unconstitutional. It represented an unfair state-to-state representation of a federal election.
Tx. has zero say in this. The lower and Supreme Courts of Pa. have cleared those changes and Kelly (who voted FOR the changes) missed the Pa. time limit to object. Since those changes were equally applied to all Pa. residents it does not cross Constitutional/SCOTUS guides. Since it did not disenfranchise any Pa. voters, it by definition of the EC did not disenfranchise any voters in Tx.
SCOTUS is the only court due to federal jurisdiction. Tine will tell, maybe you’ll get this right
You’re missing the entire thing here bud. FEDERAL, FEDERAL, FEDERAL, FEDERAL
Say it with me FEDERAL
This has nothing to do with local governments. The four states changed the rules, governors and election people DO NOT have a say in election law, that is the LEGISLATURE that determines election law. The changes that were made ARE NOT VALID due to the legislation not amending the changes to the state’s constitution.
This isn’t hard man. Turn off the TDS and look at this rationally.
Once again, due to the illegal changing of the election law in these four states, it disenfranchises the vote in the other states.
States choose their election laws, with little input/guidance from Constitution. SCOTUS has put little change into any states' decisions. When SCOTUS has it has been due to a state disenfranchising a portion of its' voters, or a state possibly enacting a discriminatory set of voting laws ie womens' sufferage. Gore/Bush ran the gamut of Fl. lower courts, Tx is asking original jurisdiction. Way, way different. Tx has very little if any standing. You want to make Federal the key point, but there is no "Federal" election. It is a set of 50 state elections.
You're still arguing points that have no basis in this case since the Constitution IS guiding the basis for this case.
I suggest you brush up on Article II and just sit tight.
He's being purposely obtuse, he knows all this.. I can't decide if he's trying to hoodwink us, or himself.
If this is a nothingburger as sheep are trying to spin, why are 22 dem states and territories fighting it?
Remember, I go on actions, not words.
Levin suggests the Court may fear a Communist takeover of the Senate and the Court may want to butter up to Biden. Democrat Manchin says no way he'll vote to pack the Court, Green New Deal, ban fracking, defund police or open border.
I was mildly surprised to hear Levin's commentary. But with such an air tight case, what possible reason could the Court invent to recuse themselves? Levin's corny idea makes about as much sense as any.
The Constitution was clearly abused in all four cases.
They invented a reason to say obamacre was ok, literally writing law to make it so.
The only thing worse than stealing an election is to let the voters know you are stealing it as it happens.
That leads to revolution. Let's hope smarter heads prevail.
I dont know Ghost. Lets just get this crap over with. Smarter heads (as they say) in these time are people being manipulated.
What happened? Um, KJ Freeze "misspoke". He came out and admitted they he was wrong and they hadn't made a decision yet, an honorable move, so I am accepting his statement at face value.
My name is not Mueller. But Trump didn’t cheat, as far as we know, but the Russians did on his behalf. That was proven.
Republicans are in a tough spot. Trump has hoodwinked the rank and file, and the rest of the elected officials are afraid to speak out against him, and are making the politically expedient move of appearing to support him while leaving themselves an out (notice that Florida AG didn't go so far as to actually support the Texas lawsuit, only that SCOTUS should "weigh the Texas arguments". Good political speak there.).
But the reality is, the emperor has no clothes.
Wow.
As a lawyer, you make a decent men's room attendant.
This is not a FEDERAL ELECTION. The voters are not voting for a PRESIDENT, they are voting to choose the state's representatives on the ELECTORAL COLLEGE. Each state is holding a STATE ELECTION to do this, and Texas has NO STANDING to tell other states how to run their own affairs.
It's fascinating that people on here claim the vote means nothing and the Republican state legislators should just put in their own electoral college slate to vote for Trump (completely ignoring the will of their own voters), but believe the Texas voters can be damaged by other state's decision on how to allocate their own electoral college seats. The hypocrisy, it's breathtaking.
Last edited:
It's obvious SCOTUS isn't taking this up. If there were any chance they were, if they even believed it needed a discussion, they would have pushed it to the top of the docket, because of both the national importance and the short time frame. But they have done nothing for over a day now, which says they left it on the docket in the place where it was received and they will deal with it when it comes up.
I notice nobody has mentioned the fact that the guy who initiated this lawsuit is a guy who could REALLY use a Presidential Pardon.
I notice nobody has mentioned the fact that the guy who initiated this lawsuit is a guy who could REALLY use a Presidential Pardon.
The reality is, if Trump was acting as the dictator that you sheep claim, there wouldn't have been an election and all you sheep would be in jail now. Or a Gulag.
Similar threads
