Texas asks U.S. Supreme Court to help Trump upend election in long-shot lawsuit

[Tie Dye Samurai]

8 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Absolutely false.  If a case brought before a court lacks standing then any evidence matters not.  In such instances the evidence is never even looked at.

 

Feel free to explain that the dismissal was due to lack of evidence.  If you can't then simply admit you're wrong.

Ok Ok Ok....creditable evidence...a serious lack of that.

[Lacessit]

47 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

At some point, you would think, frivolous abuse of the U.S. legal system by all these merit-less cases has to come into the picture.

 

I'm thinking of contempt of court or disbarment in the picture, it's evident the legal firms anxious to protect their brand have jettisoned Trump and the Republican campaign managers as clients. That leaves the fruitloops and phonies.

[jcsmith]

There is no floor for these guys. Just a bottomless pit of lies and conspiracy theories as they attempt to claw and cheat their way out of it.

[moogradod]

9 hours ago, Caldera said:

They should be dealt with like traitors, because that's what they are for undermining the public's trust in the democratic process / elections.

As far as I know there is a juristic issue of "false accusation" - and this all is certainly such a false accusation at the highest level and with the most impact one can imagine. So it should be evident that the proponents of all these false claims must be accused in court after the cases have ALL been rejected or disproved.

[welovesundaysatspace]

6 minutes ago, moogradod said:

As far as I know there is a juristic issue of "false accusation" - and this all is certainly such a false accusation at the highest level and with the most impact one can imagine. So it should be evident that the proponents of all these false claims must be accused in court after the cases have ALL been rejected or disproved.

Wouldn’t matter as long as they can pardon themselves. 

[moogradod]

7 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Wouldn’t matter as long as they can pardon themselves. 

Good point. I guess some procedures need a serious overhaul in the US.

[bunnydrops]

I found this little bit about AG Paxton

 

Paxton, a Tea Party Republican first elected in 2015, is under indictment for securities fraud prior to taking office in 2015. He was in the Texas State Legislature at the time and has pled not guilty. In October 2020 he was accused of “bribery, abuse of office and other crimes” by seven of his senior aides.

“Think of the irony here,” said Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers in response to Paxton’s suit. “We have a Texas attorney general, who’s being investigated by the FBI for various improprieties. Numerous newspapers in Texas calling for his resignation. And he teams up with President Trump to try to take away the votes of the people of Wisconsin.”

https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2020/12/08/more-states-want-to-join-texas-in-suing-wisconsin-three-other-states/

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

Yes, hit the nail on the head there!

 

What is more, all they debt waiting- banks might think twice on foreclosing on a sitting President, but once he has left the Whitehouse...

 

The house of cards which is "all things Trump" is about to come crashing down. Shame isn't it?

He's raking in cash from his fake legal fund. And the type of fund it is has very few restrictions. In addition, I don't think he'll have problems getting loans one way or another from the Saudis, the Qataris et alii. The Qataris bailed out the Kushner family from Jared's disastrous investment via a sweetheart deal to the tune of about 1 billion dollars. And there's Putin, too. As Eric Trump once noted, the Russians gave the Trumps a lot of business.

Edited December 9, 2020 by placeholder

[placeholder]

All bets are off. The stable genius is coming to the rescue!

Trump says he will intervene in Texas election lawsuit

"We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!" Trump tweeted.

Trump says he will intervene in Texas election lawsuit | TheHill

[Tug]

14 hours ago, Kelsall said:

It appears to be on the docket.

No. 22O155
Title:	Texas, Plaintiff v. Pennsylvania, et al.
Docketed:	December 8, 2020
Lower Ct:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

Fortunately for us the Supreme Court reacts and rules on evidence unlike the electorate who (unfortunately) can be swayed by enuendo slander dog whistles and lies so I say bring it on where’s your evidence and btw when does this become treason?

[Tie Dye Samurai]

1 hour ago, bunnydrops said:

I found this little bit about AG Paxton

 

Paxton, a Tea Party Republican first elected in 2015, is under indictment for securities fraud prior to taking office in 2015. He was in the Texas State Legislature at the time and has pled not guilty. In October 2020 he was accused of “bribery, abuse of office and other crimes” by seven of his senior aides.

“Think of the irony here,” said Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers in response to Paxton’s suit. “We have a Texas attorney general, who’s being investigated by the FBI for various improprieties. Numerous newspapers in Texas calling for his resignation. And he teams up with President Trump to try to take away the votes of the people of Wisconsin.”

https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2020/12/08/more-states-want-to-join-texas-in-suing-wisconsin-three-other-states/

With credentials like that I would say he will be ideal candidate to be Trump's running mate in 2024...

Edited December 9, 2020 by Tie Dye Samurai

[FritsSikkink]

Dictator is <deleted> scared the German bank will foreclose on him:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-says-he-will-intervene-in-texas-election-lawsuit/ar-BB1bMuQh?ocid=spartanntp

[Tippaporn]

Texas is apparently now supported by Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee.  More states to climb on board?  The MSM is mum.  Why?

 

Missouri joins 'fight' alongside Texas to challenge election before Supreme Court

 

Eric Schmitt, the attorney general from Missouri, announced on Twitter late Tuesday that his state is "in the fight" after Texas announced its election challenge that would invalidate the 62 Electoral College votes from four battleground states and award President Trump with a second term.

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by Tippaporn

[candide]

25 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Texas is apparently now supported by Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee.  More states to climb on board?  The MSM is mum.  Why?

 

Missouri joins 'fight' alongside Texas to challenge election before Supreme Court

 

Eric Schmitt, the attorney general from Missouri, announced on Twitter late Tuesday that his state is "in the fight" after Texas announced its election challenge that would invalidate the 62 Electoral College votes from four battleground states and award President Trump with a second term.

 

As usual your assertion about MSM is not true. I watched it on CNN around 15 mn ago.

[riclag]

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Not showing up.

 

Search terms:  Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee join Texas lawsuit

 

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Alabama%2C+Arkansas%2C+Florida%2C+Kentucky%2C+Louisiana%2C+Mississippi%2C+Missouri%2C+South+Carolina%2C+South+Dakota%2C+and+Tennessee+join+Texas+lawsuit&atb=v216-1&ia=web

 

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk01-LbBl3I9iSct8NCu_ezf4GsZLQg%3A1607546412497&source=hp&ei=LDbRX4K4HIzt9QOO7a2ICw&q=Alabama%2C+Arkansas%2C+Florida%2C+Kentucky%2C+Louisiana%2C+Mississippi%2C+Missouri%2C+South+Carolina%2C+South+Dakota%2C+and+Tennessee+join+Texas+lawsuit&oq=Alabama%2C+Arkansas%2C+Florida%2C+Kentucky%2C+Louisiana%2C+Mississippi%2C+Missouri%2C+South+Carolina%2C+South+Dakota%2C+and+Tennessee+join+Texas+lawsuit&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIJCCMQ6gIQJxATMgkIIxDqAhAnEBMyCQgjEOoCECcQEzIJCCMQ6gIQJxATMgkIIxDqAhAnEBMyBwgjEOoCECcyBwgjEOoCECcyBwgjEOoCECcyCQgjEOoCECcQEzIHCCMQ6gIQJ1CIEliIEmCQG2gBcAB4AIABAIgBAJIBAJgBAaABAqABAaoBB2d3cy13aXqwAQo&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwiC_v-G4cHtAhWMdn0KHY52C7EQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/20201209144840609_2020-12-09 - Texas v. Pennsylvania - Amicus Brief of Missouri et al. - Final with Tables.pdf

 

"BRIEF OF STATE OF MISSOURI AND 16 OTHER STATES AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT"

Edited December 9, 2020 by riclag

[Tippaporn]

28 minutes ago, riclag said:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/20201209144840609_2020-12-09 - Texas v. Pennsylvania - Amicus Brief of Missouri et al. - Final with Tables.pdf

 

"BRIEF OF STATE OF MISSOURI AND 16 OTHER STATES AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT"

Thanks, riclag.  We're up to 16 additional states?

 

Now I'm sure a lot of folks are going to laugh this off but before anyone considers doing so I want to remind people that while some want to blow all of this off by taking the position that they're "right" there are certainly a whole lot of people that think otherwise.

 

Here's what's at issue.  If certain states flaunted their election laws, which by doing so altered their election results, and other states adhered to their election laws then the states that disregarded theirs then directly impacted all other states.

 

Think of it this way.  You have 50 entities voting per established rules.  If some entities cheat then this alters the aggregate tallies.  How, in good conscience, would you let that stand?  I can't see how anyone could justifiably argue against this.  To argue against would be to argue in favour of states' illegal election processes.  In which case you'd simply be arguing for fraud.  Anyone who wants to point out the flaws in this logic is welcome to do so.  Just make sure your logic holds water.  And I ain't gonna reply to posters who want to make silly arguments or engage in any type of ad hominem or otherwise wish to demean me.  Keep it civil, be polite and respectful and I'll treat you in kind.

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by Tippaporn

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Thanks, riclag.  We're up to 16 additional states?

 

Now I'm sure a lot of folks are going to laugh this off but before anyone considers doing so I want to remind people that while some want to blow all of this off by taking the position that they're "right" there are certainly a whole lot of people that think otherwise.

 

Here's what's at issue.  If certain states flaunted their election laws, which by doing so altered their election results, and other states adhered to their election laws then the states that disregarded theirs then directly impacted all other states.

 

Think of it this way.  You have 50 entities voting per established rules.  If some entities cheat then this alters the aggregate tallies.  How, in good conscience, would you let that stand.  I can't see how anyone could justifiably argue against this.  To argue against would be to argue in favour of states' illegal election processes.  In which case you'd simply be arguing for fraud.  Anyone who wants to point out the flaws in this logic is welcome to do so.  Just make sure your logic holds water.  And I ain't gonna reply to posters who want to make silly arguments or engage in any type of ad hominem or otherwise wish to demean me.  Keep it civil, be polite and respectful.

 

" If certain states flaunted their election laws..."

 

By flaunting election laws, you mean expanded vote by mail, which almost every state did, Texas included.

 

Even in the unlikely event that some of these rule changes are judged to be illegal, the time to challenge them was before the election, not after.  Without evidence that a significant number of the people who voted by mail were not legal voters, the court will not throw out the election result.  And, contrary to what you are seeing on OAN and other not-news sites, no evidence of widespread illegal voting has been presented in court.

[riclag]

23 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Thanks, riclag.  We're up to 16 additional states?

 

Now I'm sure a lot of folks are going to laugh this off but before anyone considers doing so I want to remind people that while some want to blow all of this off by taking the position that they're "right" there are certainly a whole lot of people that think otherwise.

 

Here's what's at issue.  If certain states flaunted their election laws, which by doing so altered their election results, and other states adhered to their election laws then the states that disregarded theirs then directly impacted all other states.

 

Think of it this way.  You have 50 entities voting per established rules.  If some entities cheat then this alters the aggregate tallies.  How, in good conscience, would you let that stand?  I can't see how anyone could justifiably argue against this.  To argue against would be to argue in favour of states' illegal election processes.  In which case you'd simply be arguing for fraud.  Anyone who wants to point out the flaws in this logic is welcome to do so.  Just make sure your logic holds water.  And I ain't gonna reply to posters who want to make silly arguments or engage in any type of ad hominem or otherwise wish to demean me.  Keep it civil, be polite and respectful.

 

The Process continues! Democracy lives in the republic ,strength in numbers !

Edited December 9, 2020 by riclag

[pegman]

5 hours ago, Tie Dye Samurai said:

With credentials like that I would say he will be ideal candidate to be Trump's running mate in 2024...

Either that or cell mate.

[RJRS1301]

13 minutes ago, pegman said:

Either that or cell mate.

which one is BUbba??

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Thanks, riclag.  We're up to 16 additional states?

 

Now I'm sure a lot of folks are going to laugh this off but before anyone considers doing so I want to remind people that while some want to blow all of this off by taking the position that they're "right" there are certainly a whole lot of people that think otherwise.

 

Here's what's at issue.  If certain states flaunted their election laws, which by doing so altered their election results, and other states adhered to their election laws then the states that disregarded theirs then directly impacted all other states.

 

Think of it this way.  You have 50 entities voting per established rules.  If some entities cheat then this alters the aggregate tallies.  How, in good conscience, would you let that stand?  I can't see how anyone could justifiably argue against this.  To argue against would be to argue in favour of states' illegal election processes.  In which case you'd simply be arguing for fraud.  Anyone who wants to point out the flaws in this logic is welcome to do so.  Just make sure your logic holds water.  And I ain't gonna reply to posters who want to make silly arguments or engage in any type of ad hominem or otherwise wish to demean me.  Keep it civil, be polite and respectful and I'll treat you in kind.

 

My simple take on it is that there was a pandemic so in a few areas they made sensible legal rules that made it safer to vote. There is  no evidence of fraud or irregularities that could affect the outcome of the election. 

 

The bottom line is I don't care about this. This isn't going to change the election. If it gives you solace to follow this stuff that's fine. I just hope that when you read the right wing sites you also read what credible, educated legal minds are saying - and that is that there is nothing to this and it will fail. And after this fails, like all other attempts have failed, you could consider asking why and not just start spruiking the next dodgy case.

[Tippaporn]

21 minutes ago, heybruce said:

" If certain states flaunted their election laws..."

 

By flaunting election laws, you mean expanded vote by mail, which almost every state did, Texas included.

 

Even in the unlikely event that some of these rule changes are judged to be illegal, the time to challenge them was before the election, not after.  Without evidence that a significant number of the people who voted by mail were not legal voters, the court will not throw out the election result.  And, contrary to what you are seeing on OAN and other not-news sites, no evidence of widespread illegal voting has been presented in court.

So your argument is that as long as illegal action is not dealt with in an appropriately timely fashion then the illegality should stand and be accepted?  It cannot or should not be corrected?  You are then arguing to allow and accept fraud.  Be aware that other folks reject your allowance.

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

My simple take on it is that there was a pandemic so in a few areas they made sensible legal rules that made it safer to vote. There is  no evidence of fraud or irregularities that could affect the outcome of the election. 

 

The bottom line is I don't care about this. This isn't going to change the election. If it gives you solace to follow this stuff that's fine. I just hope that when you read the right wing sites you also read what credible, educated legal minds are saying - and that is that there is nothing to this and it will fail. And after this fails, like all other attempts have failed, you could consider asking why and not just start spruiking the next dodgy case.

And if it wasn't done legally?  For instance, Pennsylvania’s October 2019 expansion of “no-excuse” mail-in voting “violated the state constitution’s limits on who can cast an absentee ballot."  Pennsylvania's Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment.  The Constitution needed to be amended.  Act 77 changed the election process which can only be changed by amending the Pennsylvania’s Constitution.  Tossing of mail-in ballots would alter the outcome in PA.

 

This should help in understanding the merits of the Texas lawsuit and those other 16 states which support it.  Fair is fair.  Is it not?

 

A pandemic is not reason enough to justify an illegal act.  And you should care, at least if you're an American, that elections are conducted fairly.  I can't think of much that is more important than that the people have a true voice in electing their representative government.

[placeholder]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

And if it wasn't done legally?  For instance, Pennsylvania’s October 2019 expansion of “no-excuse” mail-in voting “violated the state constitution’s limits on who can cast an absentee ballot."  Pennsylvania's Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment.  The Constitution needed to be amended.  Act 77 changed the election process which can only be changed by amending the Pennsylvania’s Constitution.  Tossing of mail-in ballots would alter the outcome in PA.

 

This should help in understanding the merits of the Texas lawsuit and those other 16 states which support it.  Fair is fair.  Is it not?

 

A pandemic is not reason enough to justify an illegal act.  And you should care, at least if you're an American, that elections are conducted fairly.  I can't think of much that is more important than that the people have a true voice in electing their representative government.

Many arguments against this. The simplest one is that courts really really don't like "gotcha" law cases particularly when it comes to elections. These plaintiffs had a year to bring this to court but chose to wait until after the election to do so. Repeatedly courts have shot down these kind of cases.

 

And it's funny, but I believe you supported the right of state legislatures to disregard anything but the Federal Constitution on the grounds that the Constitution gives them and only them the right to set the rules regarding elections. So that according to your way of thinking, governors and state courts have no right to interfere with the state legislature's decisions. So whatever the state constitution may say is irrelevant in regard to federal elections. Changed your tune much?

 

 

 

 

[simple1]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

And if it wasn't done legally?  For instance, Pennsylvania’s October 2019 expansion of “no-excuse” mail-in voting “violated the state constitution’s limits on who can cast an absentee ballot."  Pennsylvania's Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment.  The Constitution needed to be amended.  Act 77 changed the election process which can only be changed by amending the Pennsylvania’s Constitution.  Tossing of mail-in ballots would alter the outcome in PA.

 

This should help in understanding the merits of the Texas lawsuit and those other 16 states which support it.  Fair is fair.  Is it not?

 

A pandemic is not reason enough to justify an illegal act.  And you should care, at least if you're an American, that elections are conducted fairly.  I can't think of much that is more important than that the people have a true voice in electing their representative government.

 

Get over yourself, move along, the 'safe harbour' day has now passed, trump has no chance to steal the election.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-08/us-election-safe-harbor-deadline-donald-trump-joe-biden/12956176

[placeholder]

35 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

So your argument is that as long as illegal action is not dealt with in an appropriately timely fashion then the illegality should stand and be accepted?  It cannot or should not be corrected?  You are then arguing to allow and accept fraud.  Be aware that other folks reject your allowance.

Look up the legal term laches.

[placeholder]

Most likely, the real reason for this lawsuit is that Ken Paxton, the attorney general of Texas, is bringing this case in order to get a pardon from Trump. He is under investigation by the FBI. In Texas he is actually under indictment under state law but his political allies managed to defund the prosecution so the case is in abeyance.

[riclag]

6 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Get over yourself, move along, the 'safe harbour' day has now passed, trump has no chance to steal the election.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-08/us-election-safe-harbor-deadline-donald-trump-joe-biden/12956176

Somebody should tell that to the SCOTUS ,cause the process is continuing , here is the docket #No. 22O155, Original

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/20201209144840609_2020-12-09 - Texas v. Pennsylvania - Amicus Brief of Missouri et al. - Final with Tables.pdf

 

Its a process thats playing out in the courts its perfectly legal despite   comments of "steal the election".

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

Somebody should tell that to the SCOTUS ,cause the process is continuing , here is the docket #No. 22O155, Original

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/20201209144840609_2020-12-09 - Texas v. Pennsylvania - Amicus Brief of Missouri et al. - Final with Tables.pdf

 

Its a process thats playing out in the courts its perfectly legal despite   comments of "steal the election".

How's that playing out done so far? 

[riclag]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Most likely, the real reason for this lawsuit is that Ken Paxton, the attorney general of Texas, is bringing this case in order to get a pardon from Trump. He is under investigation by the FBI. In Texas he is actually under indictment under state law but his political allies managed to defund the prosecution so the case is in abeyance.

What does that have to do with the SC  and now 15 states joining TX in a law suit ! Are those other AG's looking for a pardon too.????