Question for any Constitutional lawyer...

If I had to guess, it comes down to Common Law. Courts have always had the authority to refuse to hear cases they deem frivolous.

How is this situation any different than if I file a nonsensical lawsuit and court throws it out without even hearing the case because it obviously lacks merit?

Jurisdiction is also an issue. Does the courts have any capability to enforce a ruling on the matter? With the FBI finding nothing and Mike Pence signing off on it the system done its thing on the election. For the Supreme Court to overturn that is a big thing.

Even if calling a new election, without the time to fix the busted system still going to get the same problem. Plus all the time, expense, organization and rar ra to get there.

In the mean time looks like lots of little court cases have taken place all over the nation, some wins, some losses. Hopefully taken out a few of the bad ones. Put some light on a few of others and what weak spots to expect. With the way the current administration is going, they are going to be desperate to keep the power as long as they can.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Because Scotus is the only entity that has original jurisdiction when its state verse state.

If they decline to hear it there is no way to resolve the issue. From a con law point of view, I maintain its a violation of the 1st amendment - redress of grievances.


Typically when scotus declines to hear a case the last ruling by an appeals circuit becomes the deciding factor. In state vs state there is no ruling by a district court nor an appeals court. The issue then becomes unsolvable.

a reply to: kwakakev

Scotus has original jurisdiction and according to Federal statuary law scotus is the only court that can handle / hear / rule on cases involving state vs state.

As for Pence he and Nancy Pelosi violated the electoral count act. When an objection to electoral votes occurs, the objection has to be in writing, signed by a member of the House and a member of the Senate. This was done however it also happens to be the time when you see Capital Police letting people bypass barriers and enter the building.

When an objection is brought and completed correctly the 2 house adjourn back to their respective chambers. A 2 hour debate occurs and at the end the vote results are returned to the VP. Pence had the authority to temporarily block the electoral votes, sending them back to their respective states. The state then has 10 days to resolve the issue and return the results to the VP.

Jan 6th ALL 5 swing states were going to be objected to. They had a complaint in writing, signed by a member of the House and a member of the Senate.

Tell me, did you see them adjourn for the required debates? Did you see the vote results from those debates? Did you see a state resolve the issue?

Also the other thing that occurred. There was an emergency filing to Justice Roberts (He is responsible for DC etc) challenging the election results. By ignoring the electoral counts act and required debates and with Pelsoi calling Congress back a little after midnight, she rushed the certification. By doing so she made the issue with scotus a moot point.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: rnaa
a reply to: rnaa


When the Pennsylvania constitution is broken, directly affecting the voting in Texas, they have standing. Any illegal voting in Pennsylvania negates the legal vote in Texas.

Thats why the Texas lawsuit only covered Texas. Trying to argue the vote in other states would have been negated by Pennsylvania's illegal and unconstitutional (State constitution) actions would have qualified for a dismissal for lack of standing. Hence the reason it was only Texas, who has standing.

The Pennsylvania vote had ZERO, NADA, NOTHING to do with Texas. Not one Pennsylvania vote, legal or illegal affected any vote in Texas. In any case, the only voter fraud convictions in Pennsylvania for the 2020 election were TWO REPUBLICANS who voted for their deceased mother. How did that possibly affect Texas in anyway what-so-ever?

It is a ludicrous argument that, if followed to its logical conclusion, is saying that it doesn't matter how the vote goes in any other state, Texas is the only one that counts.

Get over yourself.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If they decline to hear it there is no way to resolve the issue.

There is no issue to resolve. Texas has no interest in Pennsylvania elections.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Xcathdra

If they decline to hear it there is no way to resolve the issue.

There is no issue to resolve. Texas has no interest in Pennsylvania elections.

But both States have big oil business 😎

a reply to: Xcathdra

If people are to look to anyone to call for an election recall, the Supreme court has a ball. Has there been any precedent of this in the past? In the Bush election, courts got involved with some stuff in Florida, was enough to flip the election. This case is different with how so many states and actors involved across the nation. With all the court stuff that has gone on since, how far has it gotten?

hereistheevidence.com

With the FBI and DOJ turning their back on any election issues, the courts could not prove anything beyond reasonable doubt in a timely manner. There was defiantly something with some of the claims made, overall it has also faced a lot of resistance.

I did watch some of congress certificating the state elections. It was around 2/3rd's certified, 1/3rd did not. Once Pence got his silver coin and signed off, it was done. Maybe the best thing the courts could of done was just shut down congress until this mess is sorted out. How many more new laws and regulations do we really need? As for getting all the junkies of the money making machine it is a tough one.

I am sure there is more that could of been done if Jan 6 went different, as for it being effective, apart from burning it down I don't see it achieving much with how much political pressure has gone on to get it this far.

If you are right that there was enough support in congress to stop the election, why did this not get picked up once things settled down? Is this part of the motive for the FBI and other actors to let people into the capital? Disrupt the process and change the narrative. With all the Jan 6 protestors locked up, they are political prisoners and the kind of thing I expect to see in China. Sounded like DC was a gated maze with all the protests going on.

As for how these Jan 6 trials go, a bit like a Trump impeachment I expect with how things are. Those that are responsible for directing the crowd there get an out of jail free card. Those just looking for some where to peacefully protest get it hard.

There where some important votes going on Jan 6 with the election. Trump had his back against a wall that day, he knew he was stuffed. Did not have the support of the globalists. Trump on Jan 6 does remind me of Rudy Guallini on 9/11. Just getting lead around a scene of engineered chaos.

If it did work out the way Trump wanted and there was a peaceful protest nearby chanting out, for those inside it would give them something to think about when deciding to vote. A bit like being in a stadium on Grand Final day. Once the building was breached, that is end of the days work for those inside.

Trump needed Pence if he was to have any chance. He did get a knife in the back. Not the first time for those playing politics.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Xcathdra

If they decline to hear it there is no way to resolve the issue.

There is no issue to resolve. Texas has no interest in Pennsylvania elections.

Actually they do. By ignoring their election laws (PA) the illegal votes affect the votes in Texas. Its the same argument with illegal aliens voting. It dilutes legal votes.

a reply to: kwakakev

The events on Jan 6th were intentional... by Democrats. Objections to certain states certification, using the electoral count act, met all requirements. The objections were in writing and a member of the House and Senate signed off on it. Once that occurred the House and the Senate retire to their respective chambers and there is a 2 hour debate.

No debate was ever conducted.
No resolution to the objections ever occurred.

The part people are not familiar with is the fact an emergency motion was filed with Scotus over the certifications. In an effort to stop the legal challenges (both in Congress and with Scotus) Pelosi reconvened the process after midnight. By the rushed certification it undermined the scotus legal challenge and we saw that the following day. John Roberts (he is assigned to the region that includes DC) declined stating since the certification was complete the legal challenge was a moot point.

Ironically enough Democrats are trying to change the electoral count act. They want to remove the ability to challenge electoral votes and the outcome of an election.

My guess is that by declining to take the case, the SC is saying that the plaintiff does not have , or has not made, their case. A state could sue another state for whatever reason they can concieve; but the mere filing of the suit does not give the case legitimacy in and of itself. If the suit is deemed as "frivolous", and/or flawed in any way, then no court is under the obligation to hear it.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Possibly but then we come back to the fact of a failure to redress grievances. Scotus should issue a more in depth statement as to why they refused to take the case and the legalities surrounding that decision. A one sentence explanation does cut it, especially since Scotus is the only court that can hear those types of cases.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Possibly but then we come back to the fact of a failure to redress grievances. Scotus should issue a more in depth statement as to why they refused to take the case and the legalities surrounding that decision. A one sentence explanation does cut it, especially since Scotus is the only court that can hear those types of cases.

Congress and the Courts and the Executive branch of government in the United States will very likely remain in permanent denial of the people's right to keep and bear Arms until they are overthrown. The national federal state local and military cops are too well armed, they've been shooting at us to kill, and more and more of them are coming to kill us. Wake up!

All I know is the gentle breech that occurred on Jan 6 will never happen like that again. It will be all guns blazing next time.

So the the acknowledgment and rectifying of the situation is the gamble. The sham trials and punishments, just grist for the mill. They better have transportation out of the US because they won’t be allowed to remain. Some, might not even be safe on the ISS.

But not my circus. Not my monkeys.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Xcathdra

If they decline to hear it there is no way to resolve the issue.

There is no issue to resolve. Texas has no interest in Pennsylvania elections.

Actually they do. By ignoring their election laws (PA) the illegal votes affect the votes in Texas. Its the same argument with illegal aliens voting. It dilutes legal votes.

Voter fraud in Pennsylvania dilutes legal votes in Pennsylvania. And it did, 2 illegal Trump votes in Pennsylvania diluted the legal Biden votes in Pennsylvania.

Illegal votes in Pennsylvania has no effect what-so-ever on any Texas vote. Period. Full stop. Zero. Nada. Nil.

a reply to: rnaa

you would be wrong but I digress...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: rnaa

you would be wrong but I digress...

So lay it out for us in excruciating detail.

Exactly how does a vote in Pennsylvania, legal or illegal, affect the vote in Texas?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: rnaa

you would be wrong but I digress...

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020


ORDER IN PENDING CASE

155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of
complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of
the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially
cognizable interest in the manner in which another State
conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed
as moot.


Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:

In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a
bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original
jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore
grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not
grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.


CERTIORARI GRANTED


20-222 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, ET AL. V. AR TEACHER RETIREMENT, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.

More than one sentence and clearly defined as to the reason for denial

nevermind, got mixed up