quote:

Originally posted by alptraum:

I'd suggest doing some reading on the type of case it is. I don't feel like typing a lot out at the moment but in summary = The arguments made have been litigated in numerous courts before, both before and after the election. In both federal and state courts, in multiple states. The SC very rarely takes something they feel should be heard in a state or federal court. Also, one of the claims of TX is that the SC should hear it because it is unique and they are the only proper venue. All of the other parties that have signed on to it have actually hurt that part of the argument. There are a other reasons as well, those are just some quick ones. This is of course just my opinion, though numerous attorneys, including ones that have appeared before the SC many times, share it. We shall see.

None of that is at all in line with my understanding of this lawsuit. For instance, this case can't possibly be heard in a state or federal appeals court. It has to go to SCOTUS. And when has this been litigated previously? In regards to this election, it certainly hasn't.

quote:

And when has this been litigated previously? In regards to this election, it certainly hasn't.

It hasn't. It has been dismissed on procedural grounds in every Court.
If you bring suit before the election, you either lack standing or have no damages.
If you bring suit after the election, you either lack standing or it's moot.
Too late.... so sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by alptraum:

I'd suggest doing some reading on the type of case it is. I don't feel like typing a lot out at the moment but in summary = The arguments made have been litigated in numerous courts before, both before and after the election. In both federal and state courts, in multiple states. The SC very rarely takes something they feel should be heard in a state or federal court. Also, one of the claims of TX is that the SC should hear it because it is unique and they are the only proper venue. All of the other parties that have signed on to it have actually hurt that part of the argument. There are a other reasons as well, those are just some quick ones. This is of course just my opinion, though numerous attorneys, including ones that have appeared before the SC many times, share it. We shall see.

None of that is at all in line with my understanding of this lawsuit. For instance, this case can't possibly be heard in a state or federal appeals court. It has to go to SCOTUS. And when has this been litigated previously? In regards to this election, it certainly hasn't.

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.

How Texas’s Supreme Court Lawsuit Against Pennsylvania Defends Our Civil Rights

Commonsense jurisprudence will recognize the open-shut argument that voters' civil rights were violated by vote dilution during an unconstitutional election process.

https://thefederalist.com/2020...ds-our-civil-rights/

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.