Texas case importance (accepted to take case 6-3) - in the end if Biden wins - be afraid - be very afraid

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

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.

I see you are also arguing points that no one has made.

The Constitution tells states the process for changng voter laws. 4 states acted unconstitutionally in not following that process.

Texas is suing them as a result And they have an airtight case.

 

[Nolec]

I see you are also arguing points that no one has made.

The Constitution tells states the process for changng voter laws. 4 states acted unconstitutionally in not following that process.

Texas is suing them as a result And they have an airtight case.

AIr is going to be let out very quickly and decisively. Might even be tomorrow.

 

[nail1988]

 

[jfegaly]

View embedded media

Win or lose. Texas Rebuttal is skrong. Wow!

 

[nail1988]

Win or lose. Texas Rebuttal is skrong. Wow!

It’s a haymaker.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Georgia legislators have asked to be added as well.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

AIr is going to be let out very quickly and decisively. Might even be tomorrow.

Nope. The Constitution clearly says they have a case. SC may ignore the Constitution and not take up the case, but the case itself is airtight.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

 

[Nolec]

Nope. The Constitution clearly says they have a case. SC may ignore the Constitution and not take up the case, but the case itself is airtight.

Mutually exclusive to intelligent people.

 

[LizardGrad89]

I see you are also arguing points that no one has made.

The Constitution tells states the process for changng voter laws. 4 states acted unconstitutionally in not following that process.

Texas is suing them as a result And they have an airtight case.

Texas has no standing. Learn what standing means and get back to me.

It's funny that Pennsylvania filed that request for Pennsylvania and got rebuffed 9-0, but somehow you think Texas can sue Pennsylvania and get the verdict you want. LOL at you.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Texas has no standing. Learn what standing means and get back to me.

Article II of the Constitution says they do. You can poke your bottom lip out as far as you want, it won't change that fact.

 

[nail1988]

This is big


BREAKING: Pennsylvania House of Representatives Join Texas in Their Lawsuit Against Key Swing States

BREAKING: Pennsylvania House of Representatives Join Texas in Their Lawsuit Against Key Swing States

On Tuesday morning, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton revealed that the state of Texas filed a massive lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin for exploiting “the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute...

trendingpolitics.com

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

LOL optics look very bad when your a state legislature is suing its own state for holding an unconstitutional election.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

LOL optics look very bad when your a state legislature is suing its own state for holding an unconstitutional election.

GA and MI have as well

 

[jfegaly]

Texas has no standing. Learn what standing means and get back to me.

It's funny that Pennsylvania filed that request for Pennsylvania and got rebuffed 9-0, but somehow you think Texas can sue Pennsylvania and get the verdict you want. LOL at you.

At least two Supreme court justices disagree with the logic you are applying

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

At least two Supreme court justices disagree with the logic you are applying

Wait, you understand his logic??? I *think* he's trying to claim that we have no such thing as a federal election in this country, so Texas can't sue the 4 states. At least I think that's what he's trying to claim, I don't speak dumbass so not sure. Then again he rarely knows what he's saying, take his 'count every vote' claim and not realizing he was calling for the counting of every illegal vote.

All 5 states in question agreed to be bound by the US Constitution. 4 states did not follow the Constitution, and the 5th is suing them because their actions impacted the voters in their state.

Constitution is clear that they have standing and an airtight case. Goodness the sheep literally believe in a world that doesn't exist.

 

[fsumc]

It’s pretty simple. States get to decide how they cheat in federal elections and there’s nothing another state can say or do about it.

 

[nail1988]

Absolute disgrace 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

The 3 Trump appointees are COWARDS.......all 3 along with Quisling Robert’s voted with the leftist.😡😡🤬🤬

 

[goldmom]

Should someone call a fat lady? 😳
First person who asks if I'm available dies...I ain't fat.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Absolute disgrace 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

The 3 Trump appointees are COWARDS.......all 3 along with Quisling Robert’s voted with the leftist.😡😡🤬🤬

Alito saying they couldn't have ruled for Texas even if they had heard the case almost sounds like hes signaling to the Trump team, or maybe the states. Like we can't undo cheating, but show us evidence the dems cheated in the votes, and we can.

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

SCOTUS: Snow is not frozen nor made of ice . See the definition of snow

Def of snow: Frozen precipitation in the form of white or translucent hexagonal ice crystals that fall in soft, white flakes.

SCOTUS: The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution.

Article III section 2
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states

This was a controversy between 2 states, period. Original jurisdiction and standing just because two state have a controversy between them

 

[gator1776]

SCOTUS: Snow is not frozen nor made of ice . See the definition of snow

Def of snow: Frozen precipitation in the form of white or translucent hexagonal ice crystals that fall in soft, white flakes.

What’s that supposed to mean?

 

[NavigatorII]

Alito saying they couldn't have ruled for Texas even if they had heard the case almost sounds like hes signaling to the Trump team, or maybe the states. Like we can't undo cheating, but show us evidence the dems cheated in the votes, and we can.

How much more phucking evidence do they need????

 

[nail1988]

 

[kjfreeze]

View embedded media

 

[sadgator]

This thread did not age well.

 

[martycat1]

What’s that supposed to mean?

It means some of you folks dont understand Appalachian American.

 

[bradleygator]

Poor @Nolec...

You were saying?

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

What’s that supposed to mean?

see my edit

 

[bradleygator]

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.)

Shows what your opinion is worth, yes?

 

[bradleygator]

Did @BSC911 actually just claim he never accused Trump of cheating in 2016?

Russia, Russia, Russia ring a bell with anyone?

You should file for Supreme Court review of BSC’s posts.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

You were saying?

Oh good. Now the commies are doing a victory lap...

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

Alito saying they couldn't have ruled for Texas even if they had heard the case almost sounds like hes signaling to the Trump team, or maybe the states. Like we can't undo cheating, but show us evidence the dems cheated in the votes, and we can.

This case was not about "cheating or fraud." It was about unconstitutional votes.

 

[BSC911]

Oh good. Now the commies are doing a victory lap...

LOL. Have you ever been right about anything? Let me know when you’re willing to honor your bet? Remember, it was you that proposed it.

 

[gator1776]

It means some of you folks dont understand Appalachian American.

Hey I agree I don’t. I even worked in eastern Kentucky and I don’t know what it means. Which is why I’m asking.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

This case was not about "cheating or fraud." It was about unconstitutional votes.

Which apparently Alito just said can't or wont be undone by the SC.

 

[gator1776]

View embedded media

It will boomerang on us, not on them.

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

Hey I agree I don’t. I even worked in eastern Kentucky and I don’t know what it means. Which is why I’m asking.

see my edit...its about someone or something making a claim that is completely false and referring you to the very thing that proves them wrong

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

View embedded media

This point I agree with. The whole point of pushng for the GA runoff wins was to stop dems from packng the court. Well if this is how the Trump appointees will vote, the court is already lost so packng doesnt matter.

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

Which apparently Alito just said can't or wont be undone by the SC.

There are more cases. Levin says Pa suit needs to file for cert...it was the injuction that was shot down. I doubt SCOTUS hears any case on fraud or cheating but if someone with "standing" gets a case of unconstitutional actions before them then maybe they take it.

We would be better off with a bunch of farmers on SCOTUS. This should not be a hard job nor one that requires lenghty papers to justify any rulings.

You got superlawyers on the court who read a text and come to a conclusion 180 degrees out of phase with clear written English. Well Thomas and Alito can read and understood that they really MUST take a case like this even if its something trivial like two states disagreeing over the definition of a foot long hotdog.