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

This Guy:
justusaknight.com...


the web site owner/Author/ Speaker ... a guy named Justice

puts forth a presentation of the Texas - Supreme Court legal paper/law suit...
this action at the 'midnight hour' by Texas, is what Trump had spoken of in the Alert that BIG Things were in-the-works !


this action, pointing to 4 States in particular, is not a Trump political move --- It is a equal rights case about the unequal treatment by 4 or more States for the general election voters being denied their rightful value of the vote being negated by unconstitutional practices by GA/MI/WI & the 4th State i forgot the name of

ETA; Pennsylvania

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

Section 2 is clear that it doesn't take a complete deprivation of the right to vote to sanction a state..."in any way abridged" being the key phrase there. So, I'm not sure widespread fraud is the test.

I guess it remains to be seen. Or not. Based on everything else presented to the courts, I am guessing 'or not' (IOW...we won't get to hear the argument). But, of course, I could be wrong.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

If Texas had written this as a voting rights case, I can see your point.

They didn't. As you say, we will see.

I'm tiring of the intrigue again, thankfully.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
How exactly does Texas have a right to determine what another State does or other counties do?

What do you see as the argument about Equal Protection in this instance.

Other States violating their own Constitutions and the Federal constitution resulting in massive election fraud, also results in the disenfrachisement of Texan voters and all other voters.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... and yet, to date, no fraud has been proven in any court after more than 50 cases.

Anyone can claim anything, proving it is another matter.

You don't have to prove fraud to prove that States changed election laws in violation of their own constitutions and the Federal Constitution.

Are you really that dense?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
How exactly does Texas have a right to determine what another State does or other counties do?

What do you see as the argument about Equal Protection in this instance.

Other States violating their own Constitutions and the Federal constitution resulting in massive election fraud, also results in the disenfrachisement of Texan voters and all other voters.

Okay.

Do you think Texas can prove "other States violating their own Constitutions, etc."

Not many legal experts who have weighed in on the matter seem to think so. At least, actual legal experts.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... and yet, to date, no fraud has been proven in any court after more than 50 cases.

Anyone can claim anything, proving it is another matter.

You don't have to prove fraud to prove that States changed election laws in violation of their own constitutions and the Federal Constitution.

Are you really that dense?

That has yet to be proven either at the State or Federal level.

In fact, there are about 50 cases that have been lost making simliar claims.

originally posted by: hiImBigbob

originally posted by: FauxMulder
For what it's worth, reading around the web, almost every law expert or law professor weighing in is saying this has ZERO chance of SCOTUS hearing the case.

So that means it has 100% chance of SCOTUS hearing it. I bet my post ages better than yours.

I don't really give a rats arse how it ages. Just an observation.

So here you say:

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
How exactly does Texas have a right to determine what another State does or other counties do?

What do you see as the argument about Equal Protection in this instance.

Other States violating their own Constitutions and the Federal constitution resulting in massive election fraud, also results in the disenfrachisement of Texan voters and all other voters.

then you turn around and say:

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... and yet, to date, no fraud has been proven in any court after more than 50 cases.

Anyone can claim anything, proving it is another matter.

You don't have to prove fraud to prove that States changed election laws in violation of their own constitutions and the Federal Constitution.

Are you really that dense?

SO, you can prove that the States violated the law by proving fraud ... but you don't have to prove fraud?

Are you sure I'm the one that's dense?

a reply to: LanceCorvette

Yes they definitely lean that way. Hence the "for what its worth"

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

that is a link to the OP in this thread. I'm not a smart man, but I know what love is. And I know what the topic is as well. Can you point to where in the OP the topic of the 50 suites others filed and were laughed out of court were mentioned? That way, I won't have to keep searching for ways to make your post not look so Derpy.

originally posted by: St Udio
This Guy:
justusaknight.com...


the web site owner/Author/ Speaker ... a guy named Justice

puts forth a presentation of the Texas - Supreme Court legal paper/law suit...
this action at the 'midnight hour' by Texas, is what Trump had spoken of in the Alert that BIG Things were in-the-works !


this action, pointing to 4 States in particular, is not a Trump political move --- It is a equal rights case about the unequal treatment by 4 or more States for the general election voters being denied their rightful value of the vote being negated by unconstitutional practices by GA/MI/WI & the 4th State i forgot the name of

ETA; Pennsylvania

As was mentioned in the Georgia hearing where the Constitutional scholar said because they changed voting procedures and ONLY the state legislature can do that, not the governor the AG, or SOS. it's clear it has to be the state legislature. Each of those states had changed to the Voting code, bypassing the state legislature. While it will be argued it's more solid than trying to prove enough fraud was committed and shows why Trump's team thought separating from Powell's case was good for a number of reasons.

Will it work, will SCOTUS dismiss or hear the case? I'd imagine they would if more states joined in.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: carniv0re

You can thank me for finding the full case and a source everyone was asking for.

Hey, I found the actual paperwork on the suit.

Thanks for that, BTW!!

ETA: Trump is finally Tweeting it out too. LMAO

Looks like Sidney Powell is has filed an appeal too. I'm not sure on which case though.

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: hiImBigbob

originally posted by: FauxMulder
For what it's worth, reading around the web, almost every law expert or law professor weighing in is saying this has ZERO chance of SCOTUS hearing the case.

So that means it has 100% chance of SCOTUS hearing it. I bet my post ages better than yours.

I don't really give a rats arse how it ages. Just an observation.

LOL Wasnt trying to make it a competition . just pointing out how completely full of S### the "experts" are.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

that is a link to the OP in this thread. I'm not a smart man, but I know what love is. And I know what the topic is as well. Can you point to where in the OP the topic of the 50 suites others filed and were laughed out of court were mentioned? That way, I won't have to keep searching for ways to make your post not look so Derpy.

You seem to know alot more about "derp" than I do, but I will be glad to respond briefly.

The topic, as you point out, is the matter brought by the Texas AG. That case depends on assertions of State law being broken in it's request for extraordinary relief, so doesn't it follow that those assertions would have to be proven?

Doesn't it follow even for a "derp expert" that the 50 or so cases I'm referring to are instrumental in that effort?

Thank you for concerns about topic clarity, but I think I'm good. If you're not, you know what to do.

a reply to: Snarl

Now do it with percent of eligible voters

a reply to: putnam6

What voting procedures were changed in Georgia by the Governor, AG or SoS?

Were you thinking about Pennsylvania?

More people voted then were registered in the 2018 mid terms . Only 153 million registered voters in the midterms .

So far 155 million votes in this election LMAO.

I have 3 registered voters in my home who hated both of them and didnt vote .

I bet there are millions and millions of people who felt the same and didnt vote. This is such obvious fakery lol.

a reply to: network dude
"a better way for Trump to approach this" would have been to bring these suits BEFORE the election, not wait until after he loses in a landslide. There was plenty of time for Texas, the Trump campaign, or any other party to bring this before the Supreme Court after the various states adjusted their election process and before the actual voting began.

a reply to: Snarl

The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court shortly before midnight on Monday

Has it been confirmed that the lawsuit was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court?