What's new

This may actually matter. TX files suit in SCOTUS

Stuck

In Hell
Joined
May 20, 2020
Member Number
424
Messages
1,790
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...hallenges-election-directly-at-supreme-court/

On Monday, just before midnight, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit that is far more important than all of the others surrounding the presidential election of November 3rd.

Texas brought a suit against four states that did something they cannot do: they violated the U.S. Constitution in their conduct of the presidential election. And this violation occurred regardless of the amount of election fraud that may have resulted. The four defendant states are Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Texas filed the suit directly in the Supreme Court. Article III of the Constitution lists a small number of categories of cases in which the Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction.” One of those categories concerns “Controversies between two or more states.” Texas’s suit is exactly that. The Supreme Court has opined in the past that it may decline to accept such cases, at its discretion. But it is incumbent upon the high court to take this case, especially when it presents a such a cut-and-dried question of constitutional law, and when it could indirectly decide who is sworn in as President on January 20, 2021.

The Texas suit is clear, and it presents a compelling case. The four offending states each violated the U.S. Constitution in two ways.

First, they violated the Electors Clause of Article II of the Constitution when executive or judicial officials in the states changed the rules of the election without going through the state legislatures. The Electors Clause requires that each State “shall appoint” its presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

In the early years of the Republic, most state legislatures appointed their presidential electors directly, without holding a popular election for President. That would change during the early decades of the nineteenth century. But the constitutional principle remained the same. Regardless of whether a state appoints its electors by a vote in the legislature or by a vote of the people, it is the state legislature — and only the state legislature — that sets the rules.

Thus, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended by three days the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots, contrary to the law passed by the state legislature, the state court changed the rules in violation of the Electors Clause. Similarly, when Georgia’s Secretary of State responded to a lawsuit by entering into a Compromise Settlement Agreement and Release (i.e. a consent decree) with the Democratic Party of Georgia, and modified the signature verification requirements spelled out by Georgia law, that changing of the rules violated the Electors Clause.

The second constitutional violation occurred when individual counties in each of the four states changed the way that they would receive, evaluate, or treat the ballots. Twenty years ago, in the landmark case of Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when one Florida county treated ballots one way, and another Florida county treated ballots a different way. Voters had the constitutional right to have their ballots treated equally from county to county.

So when election officials in Wayne County, Michigan, ignored the requirements of Michigan law and denied poll watchers access to vote counting, while other counties in Michigan followed the law, that violated the Equal Protection Clause. Similarly, in Wisconsin, when the Administrator of the City of Milwaukee Elections Commission ignored the requirements of Wisconsin law and directed election workers to write in the addresses of witnesses on the envelopes containing mail-in ballots, while ballots without witness addresses were deemed invalid elsewhere, that resulted in the unequal treatment of ballots in the state.

Importantly, the Texas lawsuit presents a pure question of law. It is not dependent upon disputed facts. Although these unconstitutional changes to the election rules could have facilitated voter fraud, the State of Texas doesn’t need to prove a single case of fraud to win. It is enough that the four states violated the Constitution.

The lawsuit asks the Supreme Court to remand the appointment of electors in the four states back to the state legislatures. As the Supreme Court said in 1892 in the case of McPherson v. Blacker, “Whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time…”.

If Texas prevails, the four state legislatures could follow any number of courses in appointing their presidential electors. They could assess the election results and try to exclude those ballots that were counted in violation of state law in order to determine a winner, or they could divide their Electoral College votes between the two candidates, or they could follow a different path. But they have to follow the Constitution in whatever they do.

In the rest of country, the states followed the constitutional rules in appointing presidential electors. The offending states cannot be allowed to violate those same rules. It’s not just a matter of constitutional law. It’s a matter of basic fairness.
 
Not only that but by cheating in these five states they not only disenfranchised their own citizens…by turning the election through their cheating they have disenfranchised everybody and all states. More states (as the rest of) should join this suit.
 
Not only that but by cheating in these five states they not only disenfranchised their own citizens…by turning the election through their cheating they have disenfranchised everybody and all states. More states (as the rest of) should join this suit.

That argument has been thrown out like 49 times this year. This actually may have a chance.
 
Not only that but by cheating in these five states they not only disenfranchised their own citizens…by turning the election through their cheating they have disenfranchised everybody and all states. More states (as the rest of) should join this suit.

I can see that happening.
 
In the 2000 election; the USSC ruled that it was unconstitutional FL extended the deadline for certifying their votes, which effectively killed Algore's argument(s)/election aspirations.


Apparently; similar to what PA has done: extend a constitutionally mandated deadline without proper course.
 
I've been saying for years that we're on the verge of state v state lawsuits... I just figured it'd be over guns or emissions, not over election integrity.
 
I've been saying for years that we're on the verge of state v state lawsuits... I just figured it'd be over guns or emissions, not over election integrity.

"Never underestimate the power of the darkside" (Democrat Party).


Good point.

Like the World Trade Center attacks crashing airliners into it; I never thought the Democrat Party would so thoroughly and completely undermine the election process on such a grand scale.

Yet this is their SECOND attempt trying! :mad3: :mad3:
 
Texas will be a democratic state by the next election :homer::stirthepot:
 
interesting approach

It is a Constitutionally accurate case. One state appeals to the SCOTUS because a couple of others conspired to fuck said state in a Federal election. Judges have been tossing cases on utterly bullshit excuses like 'the election already happened so we can't fix it". The fuck you can't judge, that's exactly what the party that brought the suit asked you to do. It is ipso facto "after the fact".

I have been busy and haven't posted but there are several options left for this fraud to be addressed. 1. State AG's file suit. In this case TX filed. Other AG's can file an amicus brief in support of it. 2. State legislatures can exercise their Constitutionally enumerated powers and address the discrepancies within their own states. 3. States could refuse to send electors and force the vote to the House, as enumerated in the Constitution. etc.
 
Is this another fake news article, there doesn't seem to be another source for this article.

Quit asking on DU and search for yourself

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2020/12/08/texas-scotus-lawsuit-n2581205

Breaking: Texas Files Election Lawsuit at Supreme Court Against Four Battleground States

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/2020-election-texas-scotus
BREAKING: TEXAS FILES SCOTUS SUIT AGAINST FOUR STATES OVER THEIR HANDLING OF 2020 ELECTION


BRODIGAN DECEMBER 08, 2020

https://www.dailywire.com/news/brea...4-states-at-supreme-court-over-election-rules


BREAKING: Texas Files Lawsuit Against 4 States At Supreme Court Over Election Rules

By Ryan Saavedra

Dec 8, 2020 DailyWire.com
 
In the 2000 election; the USSC ruled that it was unconstitutional FL extended the deadline for certifying their votes, which effectively killed Algore's argument(s)/election aspirations.


Apparently; similar to what PA has done: extend a constitutionally mandated deadline without proper course.

They did, but was also some vague language added in their decision because they had to produce a verdict so fast., so I'm not sure that second part will go anywhere:
Some critics of the decision argue that the majority seemed to seek refuge from their own logic[SUP][57][/SUP][SUP][58][/SUP] in the following sentence in the majority opinion: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."[SUP][59][/SUP] The Court's defenders argued that this was a reasonable precaution against the possibility that the decision might be read over-broadly,[SUP][60][/SUP] arguing that in the short time available it would not be appropriate to attempt to craft language spelling out in greater detail how to apply the holding to other cases. Critics, however, interpreted the sentence as stating that the case did not set precedent in any way and could not be used to justify any future court decision, and some suggested that this was evidence the majority realized its holding was untenable.[SUP][61][/SUP] Regardless of whether the majority intended the decision to be precedential, it has been cited by several federal courts in election cases,[SUP][62][/SUP][SUP][63][/SUP][SUP][64][/SUP][SUP][65][/SUP][SUP][66][/SUP] as well as by a lawyer for a Republican congressional candidate during legal arguments coincident with the 2020 United States Presidential Election.[SUP][67][/SUP]

That said, I hope it actually does get the consideration it deserves by the court. I dislike Trump, but I dislike inequality more.
 
I've been saying for years that we're on the verge of state v state lawsuits... I just figured it'd be over guns or emissions, not over election integrity.

I am all for states rights, and had been heading in this direction too...

I didn't think for a second state vs. state was going to be over election tampering. I thought water rights, or something along those lines... boy was I way off.
 
Top Back Refresh