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

[Tippaporn]

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

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?

So you too are arguing that even though PA's Act 77 was in violation of PA's Constitution it should be allowed to stand?  Arguing for the acceptance of illegality only because no one challenged them in a timely fashion and thus since they got away with an illegality it should therefore stand?  Arguing that a wrong cannot be righted?  I'm obviously arguing for fairness and a remedy.  You seem to be arguing against fairness and do not which to seek a remedy.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

As to the last portion of your post you have completely misinterpreted my previous explanation of the fact that States are free to create whatever laws they want and adopt whatever State Constitution they want so long as nothing within these violate the U.S. Constitution in any way.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

So you too are arguing that even though PA's Act 77 was in violation of PA's Constitution it should be allowed to stand?  Arguing for the acceptance of illegality only because no one challenged them in a timely fashion and thus since they got away with an illegality it should therefore stand?  Arguing that a wrong cannot be righted?  I'm obviously arguing for fairness and a remedy.  You seem to be arguing against fairness and do not which to seek a remedy.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

As to the last portion of your post you have completely misinterpreted my previous explanation of the fact that States are free to create whatever laws they want and adopt whatever State Constitution they want so long as nothing within these violate the U.S. Constitution in any way.

It's an established legal doctrine. And of course, what you completely ignore is the fairness of disallowing the votes of millions of people when that could have been avoided by a timely intervention in the courts system.

 

And while you claim that I have misinterpreted your previous explanation you offer no argument as to what is wrong with it. Not real convincing.

[candide]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

So you too are arguing that even though PA's Act 77 was in violation of PA's Constitution it should be allowed to stand?  Arguing for the acceptance of illegality only because no one challenged them in a timely fashion and thus since they got away with an illegality it should therefore stand?  Arguing that a wrong cannot be righted?  I'm obviously arguing for fairness and a remedy.  You seem to be arguing against fairness and do not which to seek a remedy.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

As to the last portion of your post you have completely misinterpreted my previous explanation of the fact that States are free to create whatever laws they want and adopt whatever State Constitution they want so long as nothing within these violate the U.S. Constitution in any way.

Are you kidding us? PA Republicans voted it and after elections they filed a lawsuit against what they voted, just because Trump lost. What a joke!

[Fat is a type of crazy]

45 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.

 

I am not a lawyer so I listen to legal minds I can trust and they don't see merit in this case.  It is interesting that the law you refer to was passed over a year ago and voted through with a  majority GOP legislature. No problems from Republicans till Trump lost and had a hissy fit.

Let's say in this case there is an issue. There are always going to be some legal issues that will arise in elections in both Democrat and Republican states. The courts are not likely to find that it is fair to disenfranchise millions of voters even if there is the possibility that the republicans themselves passed a disputed law a year before the election.  

This case though appears to be focusing on looking to overturn the decision in four states citing election fraud where there is no evidence of fraud.    

 

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by Fat is a type of crazy

[simple1]

11 minutes 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".

 

Just my opinion, but I now view trump as a pathetic boor; guy should grow up and stop wasting tax payers money, Court's time and ripping off donors. Ivanka has just acquired a $30m plot of land in Miami to build yet another home, an hour drive from trump's place. trump should get the hint, hand over to Biden, host some weirdo far right conspiracy media company to keep himself entertained, would be a perfect match for him and many of his followers.

[Sujo]

1 hour 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.

What fraud?

 

Republicans filing a brief against themselves. 

 

The supreme court filing is purely asking for leave to be heard. It has nothing to do with any fraud, that will cone later if the court agrees to hear the case.

 

But first this matter is solely asking the court to consider if texas has the standing to file a complaint.

[placeholder]

50 minutes ago, riclag said:

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.????

You can't think of any motive besides looking for a pardon? Given that legal experts are virtually unanimous that this lawsuit is doomed to fail? Except possibly for those "experts" who haunt such unhappy corners of the internet such as OAN, Epoch Times, Breitbart? You know, the "expert" whose predictions about legal outcomes have failed time and time again. Ya really can't come up with any other motive?

Not even the Solicitor General of Texas joined in to support Paxton.

Edited December 9, 2020 by placeholder

[heybruce]

2 hours 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.

The rules that are judged illegal, if there are any, should be changed.  However votes cast by legal voters in accordance with the rules at the time should still be counted.  I am confident that if the courts take on this case the votes cast will be respected regardless of any ruling on the election rule changes.

 

In short, don't count on the courts disenfranchising millions of voters after the fact, which is what Trump needs and you obviously want.

Edited December 9, 2020 by heybruce

[Sujo]

Republicans suing themselves for making changes they agreed to. Then only complain after they lose.

 

All 50 states have certified the results. This case is going nowhere.

[numbr1]

To all the learned here: please become familiar with the meaning of voter disenfranchisement. Then you may be able to understand (and submit informed comments) that the intent of a contested election is to reject illegal or otherwise ineligible votes.

If you voted legitimately, you are not "disenfranchised" you merely voted for the loser.

 

voter disenfranchisement  is depriving people of the right to vote, ie: felons, (some states), homeless,  some native reservations, etc.

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

So you too are arguing that even though PA's Act 77 was in violation of PA's Constitution it should be allowed to stand?  Arguing for the acceptance of illegality only because no one challenged them in a timely fashion and thus since they got away with an illegality it should therefore stand?  Arguing that a wrong cannot be righted?  I'm obviously arguing for fairness and a remedy.  You seem to be arguing against fairness and do not which to seek a remedy.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

As to the last portion of your post you have completely misinterpreted my previous explanation of the fact that States are free to create whatever laws they want and adopt whatever State Constitution they want so long as nothing within these violate the U.S. Constitution in any way.

In that case the governors and courts of those states do have the authority to limit the power of the legislatures in accordance with the state constitutions.

[placeholder]

11 minutes ago, numbr1 said:

To all the learned here: please become familiar with the meaning of voter disenfranchisement. Then you may be able to understand (and submit informed comments) that the intent of a contested election is to reject illegal or otherwise ineligible votes.

If you voted legitimately, you are not "disenfranchised" you merely voted for the loser.

 

voter disenfranchisement  is depriving people of the right to vote, ie: felons, (some states), homeless,  some native reservations, etc.

And, as courts have tepeatedly ruled, nullifying the votes of citizens who voted in accordance with the electoral rules as they stood at the time of the election.

[Thailand Forever]

Sixteen other States have joined the Texas lawsuit.

US election drama has entered the second act.

Popcorn at the ready for third act and dramatic conclusion to the "greatest show on earth."

[placeholder]

14 minutes ago, Thailand Forever said:

Sixteen other States have joined the Texas lawsuit.

US election drama has entered the second act.

Popcorn at the ready for third act and dramatic conclusion to the "greatest show on earth."

But without the suspense.

[Sujo]

To really rub his nose in it i hope the scotus agrees to humor him and hear the case.

 

Listen to his counsel talk for an hour then just turn to the other side and say they dont need to talk, application denied.

 

Thats a real kick in the guts when judges do that. They think its so bad that a defence isnt necessary.

[jcsmith]

6 hours ago, Thailand Forever said:

Sixteen other States have joined the Texas lawsuit.

US election drama has entered the second act.

Popcorn at the ready for third act and dramatic conclusion to the "greatest show on earth."

This is what happens when one party has only won the presidential popular vote once in the past 32 years (which was during the middle of a war), and just lost the last election by more than 7 million votes despite them doing everything they could to suppress votes.

 

The GOP is the minority, and the demographics of their base don't look good for them moving forward. It's a shrinking party and they now showing that they are willing to cheat if it allows them to stay in power. That's really what it is. At this point they've lost every legal battle over voter fraud. It's over. This latest incident is not about voter fraud its about trying to get the court to overturn a lawful election. That is the most un-democratic act they could do, and one might even consider these GOP AGs to be traitors at this point.

[Sujo]

12 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

So you too are arguing that even though PA's Act 77 was in violation of PA's Constitution it should be allowed to stand?  Arguing for the acceptance of illegality only because no one challenged them in a timely fashion and thus since they got away with an illegality it should therefore stand?  Arguing that a wrong cannot be righted?  I'm obviously arguing for fairness and a remedy.  You seem to be arguing against fairness and do not which to seek a remedy.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

As to the last portion of your post you have completely misinterpreted my previous explanation of the fact that States are free to create whatever laws they want and adopt whatever State Constitution they want so long as nothing within these violate the U.S. Constitution in any way.

Google laches. Thats your answer.