The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court

The claims in Texas’ lawsuit “are false and irresponsible,” Georgia’s deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs said in a fiery statement shortly after Paxton announced the legal action.

“Texas alleges that there are 80,000 forged signatures on absentee ballots in Georgia, but they don’t bring forward a single person who this happened to. That’s because it didn’t happen,” Fuchs’ statement said.

Experts in election law were also quick to dismiss the likelihood of the nine Supreme Court justices taking the case. Paul Smith, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said the case was “wacko.”

“There is a whole system in Pennsylvania and the other states for contesting the election — that’s all been done,” Smith said. “I don’t think the Supreme Court will have interest in this.”

The professor added that Texas could run into trouble in proving that it has grounds to sue, known in legal terms as “standing.”

“It’s totally unprecedented, the idea that one state would, at the Supreme Court, claim that other states’ votes were cast in the wrong way — that’s never happened,” he said. “What is the injury to the state of Texas because Pennsylvania’s votes were cast for Mr. Biden instead of Mr. Trump? There is no connection there.”

Source

It's beginning to look like this is going to be a history-making embarrassment for the Texas AG ...

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LanceCorvette
Which is why the states have to show that their elections followed the law as enacted by the Legislatures...

They don't have to show anything, this is Texas' case to prove.

[SNIPPED]

One last time:

The plaintiff has to show that legislatively enacted procedures were not followed, to the extent that the final tally may not be an accurate reflection of properly cast votes from eligible voters. I would assume that they'd also have to show that the number is enough to potentially effect the outcome. That's called a prima facie case in legal jargon - "you've shown you have a case, let's hear from the defense" in layman's terms.

At that point the burden of producing evidence shifts to the states to show that they followed their procedures, that there were no deviations from legislatively enacted procedures (or that the deviations were too minor to effect the outcome).

The plaintiffs do not need to prove who actually won. Showing who received the majority of properly cast ballots from eligible voters is always the state's burden. They might not be able to do that if thousands of illegal and untraceable ballots were shuffled into legal ballots.

I did say all of this in my original post.

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: Gryphon66

Paxton is a real dirtbag...in addition to those allegations, he has been under indictment for 5 years for federal securities fraud charges. He has a lot to lose in a world without a Trump Justice Department.

www.texastribune.org...

Yeah, I'm getting that impression as I find out more about him.

It's really disappointing to get Trump supporter's hopes up so high only to crash (again.)

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Explain to me how there can be so many traitors in the country?

There aren't that many. It's just the elite ... .01%.

I don't want that SOB as my president.

Probably take a revolution to stop that ... and who's gonna fight during the Winter?

therightscoop.com...

WATCH: Tucker exposes scrubbed video of Chinese professor saying they have people at top of America

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Explain to me how there can be so many traitors in the country?

There aren't that many. It's just the elite ... .01%.

I don't want that SOB as my president.

Probably take a revolution to stop that ... and who's gonna fight during the Winter?

Something has to be done we can't let this happen.

a reply to: LanceCorvette

And my point is the Supreme Court wont entertain this because the relief sought is absurd.

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: Gryphon66

Paxton is a real dirtbag...in addition to those allegations, he has been under indictment for 5 years for federal securities fraud charges. He has a lot to lose in a world without a Trump Justice Department.

www.texastribune.org...

Sounds like Joe Biden who had a lot to lose by not running for President with all the scandals around him and Hunter, but here we are... Dirt bags apparently on both sides... Im more concerned about a President elect who's owned by China who has him by the balls... i cant see how that's going to be good for this country...

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
He has a lot to lose in a world without a Trump Justice Department.

I can't remember the last time I heard about 'the machine' grinding on anyone unless they were a Trump admin (or Trump himself - impeachment).

I worry Trump is gonna go hog-wild. How did Emerson say it? "When you strike at a king, you must kill him.'

a reply to: Gryphon66

I do have my hopes up and pray that Trump wins in the
end.The difference being,if he does lose and Biden slinks
in,I won't be going into a rage,burning,looting and harming
others.

a reply to: LanceCorvette

Yes they are being deliberately obtuse....

They could care less about what actually happened....

Sad state of affairs...

Don't worry about “eroding the faith of America's Elections”...the world doesn't have any faith left in the US...elections or otherwise....

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Gryphon66

The fact they are only going after states where Biden won says it all.

One can easily find states where Trump won that had similar changes via executive action, yet the lawsuit did no name those states.

We both know this will go no where, but it might be the kind of news that will help Trump get more donations.

And I'm sure in your mind, a better way for Trump to approach this would be to go to all the states he won, and contest those votes with a day or two left in his fight.

You really are a derp kind of guy aren't you.

Wait, was it Trump or Texas that allegedly filed this?

Besides, while we're talking "derp" ... lets' talk about 50 + suits that have been laughed out of court.

If you want to, go nuts. But this one suit is the current topic. Perhaps if you really want to talk about the 50 suits that others filed pertaining to the election fraud and were lost or "laughed out of court" you could make a thread.

It doesn't take a totally derp free mind to understand "the topic" of a thread and what it entails to stay within that topic, but then Derp runs deep in some.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Explain to me how there can be so many traitors in the country?

It's a human failing. As the old saying goes...

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: LanceCorvette

And my point is the Supreme Court wont entertain this because the relief sought is absurd.

... not to mention that everything is predicated on the words "if Plantiffs prove that" ...

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: LanceCorvette

And my point is the Supreme Court wont entertain this because the relief sought is absurd.

Playing devils advocate, what happens if they do entertain it? What happens if the 5/4 republican led Supreme court rules in favor of suit against these states? Will it be accepted by MSM, by people on the left, by Libertarians, or will it be challenged/not accepted if Trump is made President for 4 more years?

originally posted by: network dude

It doesn't take a totally derp free mind to understand "the topic" of a thread and what it entails to stay within that topic, but then Derp runs deep in some.

Indeed. That must be why I've made around 50 posts about the topic, most with citations, eh?

Thanks again for the very astute advice though, as always.

originally posted by: jhn7537
Playing devils advocate, what happens if they do entertain it?

Then you need to see what the arguments are in front of the full court.

originally posted by: jhn7537

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: LanceCorvette

And my point is the Supreme Court wont entertain this because the relief sought is absurd.

Playing devils advocate, what happens if they do entertain it? What happens if the 5/4 republican led Supreme court rules in favor of suit against these states? Will it be accepted by MSM, by people on the left, by Libertarians, or will it be challenged/not accepted if Trump is made President for 4 more years?

There are 5 Republicans on the Supreme Court?

Wait, isn't the highest Court in the land supposedly free from partisan politics?

Since you like playing Devil's Advocate ... a counter-question for you: what do you think Trump supporters will do when SCOTUS ignores this farce completely?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Exactly what I was thinking, Texas has no standing in this case. There's absolutely no way this will make it to trial.

IS this going to be another bust, or is this finally the BOOM the sycophants have been waiting for for the past 5 years.