quote:

Originally posted by alptraum:

The ability of a state to alter their own election laws (among other things) in ways they see fit (leaving out the state legislature at times) has absolutely been heard in court before in the last year, in multiple states. TX is basically saying they disagree with how other states conduct their own business. There is plenty to read out there about this case, much more lengthy and well written then what I've said. Hopefully we'll know what the SC decides to do later today.

I think you are full of crap and need to find another place to post your bull.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
I think you are full of crap and need to find another place to post your bull.

He's stating a reasonable opinion in a reasonable manner. Just because you disagree with it or the fact he may be right hurts your feelings, doesn't make it "crap" or "bull."

I think he's wrong, too. But he's right about this: Plenty of people far more knowledgeable than me agree with him.

What will you do if he turns out to be right? Tell anybody who writes "Well, it looks like alptraum was right" they're full of crap and it's bull, too?

quote:

Originally posted by alptraum:

The ability of a state to alter their own election laws (among other things) in ways they see fit (leaving out the state legislature at times) has absolutely been heard in court before in the last year, in multiple states. TX is basically saying they disagree with how other states conduct their own business. There is plenty to read out there about this case, much more lengthy and well written then what I've said. Hopefully we'll know what the SC decides to do later today.

The Constitution is expressly clear on this matter, and these states have undoubtedly gone against the Constitution. This needs to be addressed and corrected now. Frankly, it should be shocking if SCOTUS didn't hear this case.

quote:

Frankly, it should be shocking if SCOTUS didn't hear this case.

There are at least 4 Justices who will be against hearing this case. It remains to be seen what the other 5 will do.
I also think it should be shocking if SCOTUS didn't hear this case. This isn't a problem that can be ignored or that will go away if they don't face it. Besides, under Biden the Dem socialists will try to "pack" the Court and that will make the conservative (originalist) Justices irrelevant. They have to know that.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
I think you are full of crap and need to find another place to post your bull.

He's stating a reasonable opinion in a reasonable manner. Just because you disagree with it or the fact he may be right hurts your feelings, doesn't make it "crap" or "bull."

I think he's wrong, too. But he's right about this: Plenty of people far more knowledgeable than me agree with him.

What will you do if he turns out to be right? Tell anybody who writes "Well, it looks like alptraum was right" they're full of crap and it's bull, too?

Yea verily. I'd hate to see this place turned into an echo chamber. We all have to live in reality here, and making your own doesn't shield you from it, but it can make you unprepared for it.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Besides, under Biden the Dem socialists will try to "pack" the Court and that will make the conservative (originalist) Justices irrelevant. They have to know that.

Trump recently mentioned a 26 justice Supreme Court. I'm not sure his source for that; that's straight up banana republic crap.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

He's stating a reasonable opinion in a reasonable manner. Just because you disagree with it or the fact he may be right hurts your feelings, doesn't make it "crap" or "bull."

I think he's wrong, too. But he's right about this: Plenty of people far more knowledgeable than me agree with him.

What will you do if he turns out to be right? Tell anybody who writes "Well, it looks like alptraum was right" they're full of crap and it's bull, too?

There is no legal justification for them turning down the case. That's BS from the other side. If they turn it down it's because they are part of the Swamp or looking out for their own interests because they are scared. Period. That doesn't mean I only want to read posts I agree with, but we are hearing enough of this type of rhetoric and BS in the media. The Constitution is clear, as is their responsibility in this matter.

Maybe he was just trying to state his opinion, but I have a very low tolerance for people justifying the actions of those who are turning their backs on this country right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

The Constitution is expressly clear on this matter, and these states have undoubtedly gone against the Constitution. This needs to be addressed and corrected now. Frankly, it should be shocking if SCOTUS didn't hear this case.

Concur. If they don't hear it they are abdicating their responsibility.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:

There is no legal justification for them turning down the case.

But there is, you just haven't looked for it or you disagree with it. I don't know if the SC will turn down this case, but it's obviously my opinion that they will refuse to take it on. Here's an interesting bit about it that kind of illustrates how the TX AG (and others that have joined) are just engaging in dangerous political theatre. One of the main claims is that the states named in the lawsuit unconstitutionally used COVIDD as an excuse to alter their election laws and procedures. TX did the same thing (the governor extended mail in voting) and yet the TX AG is not naming TX as a defendant. I don't think TX wasn't included because the AG forgot or didn't know about it.

This is a quote from the TX governors press release about it in July = ""As we respond to COVID-19, the State of Texas is focused on strategies that preserve Texans’ ability to vote in a way that also mitigates the spread of the virus," said Governor Abbott."

That exact thing is one of the many things the TX AG is trying to take other states to court for.

PS - Lest I next get denounced as a Biden loving communist troll I'd like to assure you I am not

https://www.breitbart.com/2020...eyes-voting-process/

Georgia Republican Party chairman David Shafer said Thursday during Vice President Mike Pence’s rally for the upcoming Senate runoff election that the state party is “trusting no one” as it prepares for Georgia’s voting process to begin.

Shafer was adamant that the state party is preparing accordingly to avoid questions of election integrity in the runoff election, taking place January 5, and confirmed his organization has recruited 4,000 poll watchers for the race.

"We’re gonna make sure we have eyes on every part of the process.”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I wrote previously this is an opportunity.

Put the runoff under a microscope. Track every ballot from when it comes in to when it is counted.

Spread the word that any election fraud will be aggressively prosecuted.


I am convinced the Georgia election was totally rigged, but if the DEMs get a lot less votes under a well monitored run off election, that might convince a lot of people who don't believe that right now.

BTW, I saw where Georgia law for run off elections only allows voters who were registered to vote at the time of the general election.

quote:

Originally posted by alptraum:

But there is, you just haven't looked for it or you disagree with it. I don't know if the SC will turn down this case, but it's obviously my opinion that they will refuse to take it on. Here's an interesting bit about it that kind of illustrates how the TX AG (and others that have joined) are just engaging in dangerous political theatre. One of the main claims is that the states named in the lawsuit unconstitutionally used COVIDD as an excuse to alter their election laws and procedures. TX did the same thing (the governor extended mail in voting) and yet the TX AG is not naming TX as a defendant. I don't think TX wasn't included because the AG forgot or didn't know about it.

This is a quote from the TX governors press release about it in July = ""As we respond to COVID-19, the State of Texas is focused on strategies that preserve Texans’ ability to vote in a way that also mitigates the spread of the virus," said Governor Abbott."

That exact thing is one of the many things the TX AG is trying to take other states to court for.

PS - Lest I next get denounced as a Biden loving communist troll I'd like to assure you I am not

We will disagree on this, but I apologize for snipping at you.

While that may be true (TX extended voting), I am not privy to any claims that this extension led to voter fraud in TX, at least not on the scale being alleged in WI, MI, PA and GA.

quote:

Originally posted by alptraum:

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:

There is no legal justification for them turning down the case.

But there is, you just haven't looked for it or you disagree with it. I don't know if the SC will turn down this case, but it's obviously my opinion that they will refuse to take it on. Here's an interesting bit about it that kind of illustrates how the TX AG (and others that have joined) are just engaging in dangerous political theatre. One of the main claims is that the states named in the lawsuit unconstitutionally used COVIDD as an excuse to alter their election laws and procedures. TX did the same thing (the governor extended mail in voting) and yet the TX AG is not naming TX as a defendant. I don't think TX wasn't included because the AG forgot or didn't know about it.

This is a quote from the TX governors press release about it in July = ""As we respond to COVID-19, the State of Texas is focused on strategies that preserve Texans’ ability to vote in a way that also mitigates the spread of the virus," said Governor Abbott."

That exact thing is one of the many things the TX AG is trying to take other states to court for.

PS - Lest I next get denounced as a Biden loving communist troll I'd like to assure you I am not

long article.

https://redstate.com/shipwreck...e-there-five-n292833

snips:

Four years ago, Nebraska filed a motion in the Supreme Court seeking permission to file a complaint against Colorado over issues involving Colorado’s passage of legislation that legalized the recreational use of marijuana in contravention of federal law. Nebraska alleged that its interests as a state were harmed by that legislation.

The Supreme Court denied the motion.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the denial, and he was joined in his dissent by Justice Samuel Alito.

Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor were together in denying the motion.

Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Ginsburg are no longer on the Court.

Justice Thomas:

"Federal law is unambiguous: If there is a controversy between two States, this Court—and only this Court—has jurisdiction over it. Nothing in §1251(a) suggests that the Court can opt to decline jurisdiction over such a controversy."

Four years ago Justices Thomas and Alito took the view that the Supreme Court cannot, in an exercise of discretion it has conferred upon itself, deny States a forum to litigate disputes with other states because, under the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the only forum where such disputes can be resolved.

What is unknown on this day is the views of Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett on this key issue.

quote:

Originally posted by alptraum:

This is a quote from the TX governors press release about it in July = ""As we respond to COVID-19, the State of Texas is focused on strategies that preserve Texans’ ability to vote in a way that also mitigates the spread of the virus," said Governor Abbott."

That exact thing is one of the many things the TX AG is trying to take other states to court for.

Is unfettered mail-in voting expressly forbidden in the TX state constitution as it is in Pennsylvania?

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:


We will disagree on this, but I apologize for snipping at you.

Accepted and appreciated.

quote:

Originally posted by alptraum:
Here's an interesting bit about it that kind of illustrates how the TX AG (and others that have joined) are just engaging in dangerous political theatre. One of the main claims is that the states named in the lawsuit unconstitutionally used COVIDD as an excuse to alter their election laws and procedures. TX did the same thing ...

Did it? Did Texas violate its own Constitution and laws in extending mail-in voting? Michigan, for example, clearly did, an Appellate Court judge's opinion notwithstanding.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:


Is unfettered mail-in voting expressly forbidden in the TX state constitution as it is in Pennsylvania?

I don't know, I'm not very familiar with either states constitution. Though just having done some quick searching it appears the PA state legislature passed (senate voted 35-14, house voted 138-61, then governor signed it) legislation that changed mail in voting in October 2019.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

Did it? Did Texas violate its own Constitution and laws in extending mail-in voting? Michigan, for example, clearly did, an Appellate Court judge's opinion notwithstanding.

Like Balze's it's a good question, and I don't know the answer. Though I don't think it's a violation of the MI constitution. I don't see anything about must be counted by the 8pm on election day in the state constitution, though I may have missed it. That requirement is probably in some state law or regulation, just not in the state constitution.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/...-Constitution-II.pdf

"Top Men" are now after Texas AG who filed the SCOTUS lawsuit...

https://www.washingtonexaminer...al-ken-paxton-report

The FBI has reportedly served at least one subpoena this week on Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office in its investigation into a whistleblower report that the Republican abused his office to aid a campaign donor.

Three sources confirmed that at least one subpoena for records had been issued, but they did not know whether more had been filed, according to the Austin American-Statesman. Paxton has denied any wrongdoing.

"At all times, as in every matter, I ask my staff only to search for the truth, wherever it leads," Paxton said in a Thursday evening statement. "That's my responsibility as Attorney General of Texas."

The report about a subpoena comes just days after Paxton received renewed national attention for filing a lawsuit to the Supreme Court, joined by 17 other states, attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election, which President-elect Joe Biden won by more than 7 million votes. President Trump refuses to concede to Biden, claiming the contest was "rigged."

Federal agents have reportedly been investigating Paxton since at least mid-November regarding a complaint from members of Paxton's staff earlier this year alleging that the attorney general improperly used the power of his office to shield real estate investor Nate Paul, a campaign donor and friend, from legal scrutiny. The FBI has not confirmed the investigation.

Paul's home and office were raided in 2019 by the FBI, after which he complained that he "was treated unfairly and illegally by state and federal law enforcement," according to the Houston-Chronicle. After the raid, Paxton announced that he was initiating his own investigation into the matter, which prompted the whistleblower complaint. They claimed Paxton was using the criminal process to help his donor, who contributed $25,000 to Paxton's campaign.

Paxton has since called off the investigation.

Since the whistleblower complaint was filed, three of the whistleblowers who accused Paxton of wrongdoing have been fired, and the others have either been put on leave or resigned. Four of the accusers filed a second whistleblower complaint against Paxton alleging wrongful firing and retaliation.

Issuing a subpoena on a state attorney general is a "highly unusual move," according to the Austin American-Statesmen, that likely would have required approval from the upper echelons of the Justice Department.

The initial whistleblower complaint is also being investigated by prosecutors who were already looking into Paxton about potential securities fraud charges. The previous charges accused Paxton of convincing investors to buy tech stocks without disclosing that he would be compensated for the sales.

In a previous statement, Paxton said he is prepared to defend himself against all of the allegations.

“Unfortunately, I know a little something about being falsely accused and being forced to counter allegations that are the result of overreach by prosecutors and law enforcement,” Paxton said. “I make no apologies for being a fierce investigator and defender of individual rights in the face of potentially unreasonable and authoritarian actions.”

Texas replies to defendants in the filings to the Supreme Court (done today)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/D...Reply-2020-12-11.pdf