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

a reply to: Gryphon66

An affidavit that is substantiated by corroborating evidence is evidence. On it's own, it's merely an assertion?

I don't need a lesson on what it is. Bottom line is no one would create it because they would perjure themselves.

Multiple Trump-appointed judges and Republican judges have found the evidence lacking or non-existent.

Multiple could be 2 right...don't make it sound so dramatic

SCOTUS probably won't even take up a single case.

Opinions are like...well, I know you know the rest...

Yes, I know the Democrats/progressives/liberals/leftists etc. are your enemy, and therefore all that is wrong in your world results from them. No investigations have been "stopped" or if they have prove it.

Enemy? No, they are fellow Americans blinded by their own judgement. Their right. Just like they have the right to vote and I would not take that away from anyone. I believe in the Constitution not what is best for the country.

Court cases have been lost. Efforts to deny the rule of law and our Constitution have been thwarted.

Trump lost the election. Joe Biden will be the next President.

We shall see....

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66
Evidence and a ruling are two different things.

This isn't about evidence, or rulings.

Act 77 is UnConstitutional on its face. The elections rules of PA are defined by their Constitution. Changing these rules requires the Constitution to be amended. PERIOD. This cannot be done by a mere statute, and PAs legislature knew this, because they initiated the amendment process, then, (I guess) when they realized doing so would mean it would have no effect on the 2020 election, they decided to just ignore that inconvenient fact, and pretend like they had the power/authority to do it by simple legislative fiat.

They will lose this case, because the facts are plain as day.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
They will lose this case, because the facts are plain as day.

You should probably catch up on the news. The Supreme Court kinda sorta doesn't agree with you.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: FauxMulder
This part would seem to indicate he's calling on them to consider texas case. If he was joining he would have said so. Perhaps he's waiting for it to be accepted or rejected.

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court should consider the most recent Texas motion, which contains some of the same arguments.

Now that Pennsylvania petition got tossed this one has not leg to stand on.

I would actually love at least one case to go to SCOTUS. For one I always find SCOTUS opinions interesting. Two, it would be government lawyers on both sides and I like when the justices slap around government lawyers.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Correct....

I honestly don't think the S.C. wants anything to do with the pure pandemonium that would erupt if they agreed to even hear this case, let alone actually ruling in favor of the plaintiffs (Trump/GOP).

"After waiting over a year to challenge Act 77, and engaging in procedural gamesmanship along the way, they come to this Court with unclean hands and ask it to disenfranchise an entire state," they wrote. "They make that request without any acknowledgment of the staggering upheaval, turmoil, and acrimony it would unleash."

MIKE KELLY, U.S. Congressman; SEAN PARNELL; THOMAS A. FRANK;NANCY KIERZEK; DEREK MAGEE; ROBIN SAUTER; MICHAEL KINCAID;and WANDA LOGAN,Applicants, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; PENNSYLVANIA GENERALASSEMBLY

IMO the S.C. doesn't want to touch this issue with a 10 foot cattle prod.

It's nothing to do with rightness, wrongness, correctness, incorrectness, fairness, unfairness.

The occupants of the S.C. do not want to have their hands sullied by adjudicating an issue that could open the most toxic and malevolent Pandora's Box ever seen in this country. It's not necessarily the most forthright way to handle it, and it's a tact that certainly does nothing to set a precedent against states making last-minute changes to voting laws, but....this looks like the way it'll play out.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Or maybe they just understand the law better than the people posting nonsense on here and Twitter.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Or maybe they just understand the law better than the people posting nonsense on here and Twitter.

Exactly; like people trolling the creek with "BOOOOM Kraken" threads. I think that's exactly the type of divisive political B.S. that the justices wish to extricate themselves from. The faster this all goes away, I'm guessing their opinions are, the sooner everyone can resume b*tching about COVID and big government shills. That seems a much more impotent and pathetic pastime, which is probably where the justices headspace is at.

Looks like other red states will throw in with Texas, this will be very interesting, if SCOTUS can reverse this election and it goes to the house for one vote per State and Trump wins this.....
The meltdowns on the left will be worse than in 2016.....and I will get the popcorn out.

Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota.

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
Posting work written by others

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened
The faster this all goes away...

It isn't going away. If 2008 and 2016 taught you anything it's that most Americans are Stage 4 Clingers when it comes to getting their political paradigm blown up.

Dr Steve Turley's comments and interpretation.


Texas Drops BOMBSHELL Lawsuit Challenging ELECTION as Congress Rejects Biden as President-Elect!!!

Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, have until 3 p.m. this Thursday to file their response to the Texas lawsuit..that has been joined by several other states at this point.

mobile.twitter.com...

a reply to: carewemust

No other states have joined Texas. Yes some other AG's have paid lip service. So far, Texas is the lone plaintiff.

Texas’ pleading refers eight times to “plaintiff states.” But Texas alone is pursuing the case, suggesting that Paxton’s office tried and failed to get other states to join the effort.

Dallas Local

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

confusing the PA case with the Texas one,not based on fraud,but unconstitutional actions huh? There is precedent already on this action in a past election.

originally posted by: yuppa
confusing the PA case with the Texas one,not based on fraud,but unconstitutional actions huh? There is precedent already on this action in a past election.

No, I think you are because they are both about the same thing.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

And the tooth fairy is coming tonight to make you rich

originally posted by: FauxMulder
No other states have joined Texas.

Louisiana did. Would have been nice had there been even more, but at least Texas won't stand alone.

I think two states contesting, what is so obvious to concerned voters, says a lot. It say the people following this thread aren't necessarily cuckoo.

a reply to: Snarl

Where are you getting that from?

While Landry did not technically join Paxton’s lawsuit, he urged the Supreme Court to “consider the most recent Texas motion, which contains some of the same arguments.

link

LAKE CHARLES, La. (KPLC) - Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry (R) on Tuesday said he supported the election complaint Texas has brought before the U.S. Supreme Court.

local link

Vocal support is all I see.

originally posted by: FauxMulder
Where are you getting that from?

The states of Alabama and Louisiana joined a last-ditch lawsuit filed to the Supreme Court by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Monday alleging several key states acted unconstitutionally by changing voting rules amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said Tuesday that "tens of millions of our fellow citizens in the country have deep concerns regarding the conduct of the 2020 federal elections," adding that "the Justices should hear and decide the case which we have joined representing the citizens of Louisiana."

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said his state is committed to "the fight to ensure election integrity" and that the Supreme Court's decision on the lawsuit will "instruct me as to how the State of Alabama will proceed in our fight to ensure election integrity."

Guess they got Alabama to sign up too.
Link