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

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
I think another thing when mentioning is that, even if it could be shown that these procedural changes were enacted illegally, it still doesn't justify throwing out millions of votes.

All legal voters are disenfranchised by fraud. I wish that was taken into consideration sometimes.

With "first past the post' voting in each state for the slate of Electors, millions of voters have been disenfranchised for years in every Presidential election.

To disenfranchise means to deny the validity of a vote. Voter fraud does not invalidate an election unless there is sufficent quantity to change the outcome.

Oh, if only that voter fraud could be proven in court...

a reply to: putnam6

You can put me down as saying what I said.

There is over fourteen hours of video from State Farm Arena. Guiliani and company cut that down to less than five minutes.

What was happening during that period has been explained repeatedly. The SoS has investigated the claims and found them false.

Perhaps if any compentent filing can be made specifically using the video as evidence, the matter can be resolved in court.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, IMO (which isn't worth squat, I know), if Congress has been found to have a 'self-protecting' interest in the manner of appointing presidential electors, then the voters do, too. The states give us a legal interest. We should be privy to all information the other parties with an interest are privy to. If not, we cannot protect our interest.

So, no...we can't prove fraud if we aren't privy to the same information the states and political parties are privy to. It doesn't make it right or mean fraud can't be proved. It just means we have rights that must be recognized.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Sure, what better way to insure that the Fourteenth Amendment is being followed than to invalidate millions of votes willy-nilly.

You can't make this $%#@ up.

"willy-nilly" - only where blatant voter fraud has occurred

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I've greatly enjoyed our discussion, so at least on this issue, your opinion matters to me.

All power to govern ultimately rests in the governed in the US. In a Republic, however, that's accomplished by separating the power of the government into co-equal branches. We elected (since we are not a direct democracy) representatives and officals to reprsent us in the matter of elections and voting.

Those representatives (Executive Branch) have stated that no significant fraud or exceptions exist in the Election. The Judicial Branch in each state has ruled in virtually every case presented to this point that there is no merit in the accusations of fraud, etc.

Why hasn't the cases that have been brought seek DISCOVERY regarding totals rather than the DENIAL of votes?

originally posted by: SKEPTEK

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Sure, what better way to insure that the Fourteenth Amendment is being followed than to invalidate millions of votes willy-nilly.

You can't make this $%#@ up.

"willy-nilly" - only where blatant voter fraud has occurred

Blatant implies that you believe that fraud has happened.

All that has to happen to justify that is to prove it in court.

That has still not happened.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Ohanka

Several states that Trump won also changed their voting rules because of the pandemic.

The fact they are only going after states that Biden won tells me the lawsuit is without merit and an attempt to disenfranchised 10s of millions who voted for Biden.

Absurd gibberish.

Going after states where the rules were broken is not without merit. It is justified and necessary. Including states where there were no rules broken is without merit.

No one is trying to disenfranchise millions who voted for biden. Its the millions of illegal votes that are being questioned. Nothing like conflating the issue to make it sound outrageous so you can justify your anger...

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Then someone should prove that millions of votes are illegal.

Because at this point that's a claim not a fact.

Why can't that be proven in court, if it's so obvious?

originally posted by: LanceCorvette
Lawsuits between states go first to the Supreme Court, per the US Constitution, Article 3, section 2:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."

You beat me to it...

a reply to: Gryphon66

It's amazing how many people that are demanding millions of votes to be tossed out due to a possible technicality had nothing to say when the courts found that Pennsylvania's districts were drawn to give the Republicans an unfair advantage in the 2016 election.

Can you imagine the hissy fit this site would have thrown if those votes had been tossed out?

a reply to: Gryphon66

It's very simple.

Did or did not the Pennsylvania legislature approve for the mass mailing of ballots and changes to vote deadlines? Were the votes coming in through the mail held to the same standards and scrutiny as the ones cast by election day in person voters? If the answer to both those questions is no, then the election in Pennsylvania fails to pass muster constitutionally.

And if that's the case, then its outcome casts the outcomes of the national election in doubt for every other state.

These are the same basic questions being asked of the other states in the suit.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Still, my comment was no state has broken Election laws.

Which, still, is absurdly wrong.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Still, my comment was no state has broken Election laws.

Which, still, is absurdly wrong.

Okay, prove it.

Show us the election laws that have been broken.

What cases and when have proven that election laws have been broken?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's very simple.

Did or did not the Pennsylvania legislature approve for the mass mailing of ballots and changes to vote deadlines? Were the votes coming in through the mail held to the same standards and scrutiny as the ones cast by election day in person voters? If the answer to both those questions is no, then the election in Pennsylvania fails to pass muster constitutionally.

And if that's the case, then its outcome casts the outcomes of the national election in doubt for every other state.

These are the same basic questions being asked of the other states in the suit.

Thank God for Texas then.

Let's see what SCOTUS says.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
My claim: Trump's attorneys have admited in court that there is no evidence of fraud.

Nope.

They said 'this specific case is not about Fraud'. In two cases I believe.

Sidney/Lin are handling the massive election fraud cases I believe.

a reply to: Snarl

I'm hearing there may be other states preparing to piggyback on the Texas case at the Supreme Court.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
My claim: Trump's attorneys have admited in court that there is no evidence of fraud.

Nope.

They said 'this specific case is not about Fraud'. In two cases I believe.

Sidney/Lin are handling the massive election fraud cases I believe.

I quoted them in the discussion; you are mistaken.

Sidney/Lin have lost every case they've brought.

Next?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Snarl

I'm hearing there may be other states preparing to piggyback on the Texas case at the Supreme Court.

Where are you hearing that?

Citations would be awesome, thank you so much.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
“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.

No, its because the ballots were fake, no one real behind them, so no one to object to it.

Experts in election law ... Paul Smith, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said the case was “wacko.”

...

“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.

Ummm... that in no way is what Texas is claiming.

Expert? Rotflmao!

“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.”

None - but again, that is not what they are claiming as damages.

If any State broke their own laws or violated their own Constitutions when it comes to a federal election, and those actions did or could have changed the outcome of the election, then every Texan, every Georgian, every American Citizen was damaged, by virtue of the nullification of their own votes.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's amazing how many people that are demanding millions of votes to be tossed out due to a possible technicality had nothing to say when the courts found that Pennsylvania's districts were drawn to give the Republicans an unfair advantage in the 2016 election.

Can you imagine the hissy fit this site would have thrown if those votes had been tossed out?

Question- how would Congressional redistricting affect the 2016 Presidential Election?
Answer- it wouldn't
Nor would it affect Senate races
It only affects the likelihood of Congressional races to a point, but not totally
Anything else to complain about?