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

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust
Of course they are. Their leader lost. Screw the voters. Toss their votes.

Only the illegal ballots.

You mean the ones for Biden?

You know there has been over 50 lawsuits over massive voter fraud and NONE provided evidence, most just thrown out.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Senators appointed by popular vote versus state appointment hasn’t been a good idea at all. Why shouldn’t the Electoral College be reviewed as well?

Sure. But not retroactively.

State law (in most states) says electors are selected according to the party which wins the popular vote of the state. Wait, that didn't work. We mean those laws should be ignored now because those states didn't go the way we want.

Wah.

You know that Abbot changed the election law of Texas, right? All by hisself. If that's a problem why doesn't Paxton want to sue Texas as well? Because Trump won Texas? Maybe?

a reply to: Phage

heres how you square that. SC flips the 4 texas wants flipped,then you flip texas. there all fixed.

Important statement from the U.S. Supreme Court, directed to the Pennsylvania Secretary of State, PA Supreme Court, Governor Tom Wolf, and others..

That question has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.

The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election. See Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2.

Source: www.supremecourt.gov...

a reply to: carewemust

Yes, that important statement by Alito was made back on October 28, 2020.

It's why PA sergregated the ballots. Willingly.

Spoiler allert: It didn't change the outcome. Request for certiori was denied as well, December 8, 2020.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Phage

heres how you square that. SC flips the 4 texas wants flipped,then you flip texas. there all fixed.

So you would deny the voters' voice in five states, not just four? Why stop there?

Virtually every state made some responsive effort to INCREASE the ability to vote in response to the medical emergency in the country.

Let's say it again: were the Supreme Court of the United States REVERSE the legally binding certifications of vote totals by the States, IT would be subverting the Constituttion, State Constitutions and State law.

nvm

a reply to: Gryphon66

How can you legally certify points raised by ignoring them: invalid ballots, non matching signatures, major software glitches, undocumented adjustments to the vote itself, and the biggies...ballots that would be late in the majority of the country of questionable origin, votes counted without official observers?

Let us not forget that Russia, Russia, Russia can easily be substituted with Zucker, Zucker, Zucker...only he is getting broken up

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

How can you legally certify points raised by ignoring them: invalid ballots, non matching signatures, major software glitches, undocumented adjustments to the vote itself, and the biggies...ballots that would be late in the majority of the country of questionable origin, votes counted without official observers?

Let us not forget that Russia, Russia, Russia can easily be substituted with Zucker, Zucker, Zucker...only he is getting broken up

Fifty States have followed the law and certified their elections.

Perhaps they didn't agree with the truth of your "points."

The relief that Texas, et. al. are seeking is far more disruptive to federalism and unconstitutional than what they claim as harm.

a reply to: Snarl

It’s a retweet of this Article

Pretty picture

a reply to: Gryphon66

That picture above says more than a thousand words.

a reply to: Ahabstar

I would say that picture outlines a possible #Resist movement to a Biden Commander in Thief with Texas at the front. Sure, some of those states have Democrat governors, but many have Republican legislators and Rep. AGs. This is about the size of the suspicion that the election was stolen by four cities in four states.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

That picture above says more than a thousand words.

LOL.

Perhaps "National File" is ignorant of the fact that the gray states have either filed Amici with the four "blue" states in your pretty picture or have filed agianst Texas' claims.

Are you?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Ahabstar

I would say that picture outlines a possible #Resist movement to a Biden Commander in Thief with Texas at the front. Sure, some of those states have Democrat governors, but many have Republican legislators and Rep. AGs. This is about the size of the suspicion that the election was stolen by four cities in four states.

You guys keep getting confused that 17 AG are equal to 17 States.

Anytime we color the map in pretty colors we deny the reality that EVERY STATE has people who voted for the candidates.

There are no full red or blue states in this country. They're all shades of purple.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Many of those states have the most to lose if Joe passes his policy initiatives in full. You're looking at drastic damage done with environmental agenda, etc., to those state economies and people. They have every reason to fight him. Not to mention, many of them have not locked down a second time and have more or less preserved their economies in a better state than many others. That's another reason to tell him where to stick it if he tries to lock things down as his "science" team has suggested.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Many of those states have the most to lose if Joe passes his policy initiatives in full. You're looking at drastic damage done with environmental agenda, etc., to those state economies and people. They have every reason to fight him. Not to mention, many of them have not locked down a second time and have more or less preserved their economies in a better state than many others. That's another reason to tell him where to stick it if he tries to lock things down as his "science" team has suggested.

The rhythm of the last few decades is obvious: when [Team A] is in power, the economy crashes.

When [Team B] is in power, they spend time rebuilding usually for about a decade, and when times are good again, [Team A] take credits and get re-elected ... and then they crash the economy again by transferring wealth unquitably and the cycle continues.

Who is Team A and B depends on your personal taste.

In your post, in my opinion, you're conflating the acts of a few with the intentions of the many.

The matter here discussed is whether the Supreme Court of the United States will trash the Constitution.

We'll see.

a reply to: Gryphon66

States rights do NOT surpass the constitutions laws. Those 4 states did NOT follow the constitution of the US or even their own. The LEGISLATORS are to be the sole people responsible for elections.

NO this is purely constitutional. If they have anyone to blame it is themselves. maybe they should all go beg for mercy in front of the people they screwed over with their foolishness.

"New California" and "New Nevada" file on behalf of the Plaintiff(s): twitter.com...

Does this mean the Supreme Court Justices are leaving for the day?

mobile.twitter.com...

The Supreme Court says they are the sole Arbiters of disagreements between states.

mobile.twitter.com...