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

originally posted by: jrod
So basically Texas is trying to sue other states because they do not like how they handled the election.

This case will go no where and is a waste of the Supreme Court's time.

It is interesting they only chose states where Biden won, that alone shows this lawsuit is without merit.

If one state is allowed to cheat to the extent that it sways the election in one direction or the other, that violates all US citizens' rights to a fair process. That would be a violation of the Equal Protection clause in addition to the basic mandates of the electors process.

Remember, the people of PA, WI, GA etc. also got cheated out of a fair election process, whether or not "their guy" won.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Less religious fervor and more fear.

If election was stolen and if that is allowed to stand, no election ever again can be trusted by anyone no matter its outcome.

Thanks for the honesty that the attempt is to discredit the American Electoral process.

There's no fear ... there's no evidence except Breitbart that it's even real.

originally posted by: LanceCorvette

originally posted by: jrod
So basically Texas is trying to sue other states because they do not like how they handled the election.

This case will go no where and is a waste of the Supreme Court's time.

It is interesting they only chose states where Biden won, that alone shows this lawsuit is without merit.

If one state is allowed to cheat to the extent that it sways the election in one direction or the other, that violates all US citizens' rights to a fair process. That would be a violation of the Equal Protection clause in addition to the basic mandates of the electors process.

Remember, the people of PA, WI, GA etc. also got cheated out of a fair election process, whether or not "their guy" won.

That's a big IF though, eh?

IF the document is real, IF Texas actually filed it, IF SCOTUS agrees to hear it, IF they were to find in TX favor?

Wow, what are the odds, eh?

Forget it

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Ohanka
For the Fifth Circuit - Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice (Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas)

Alito is on the Third Circuit.

IF, and that's a big IF, Alito finds in favor of the state of Texas, what are the possibilities? Does it get sent to Congress like the last time this kind of thing happened? Or do you think it more straightforward? Just curious what you're thinking is.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TERAKO68
a reply to: jrod


You call Trump supporters gullible while the same time you refuse to see the massive irregularities and fraud that went on with this election.

The hypocrisy and hubris of the left will be its undoing.

What do you make of the fact that Trump's own attorneys in court, multiple times, have stated under oath that they have no proof of fraud?

What do you make of Trump's own DOJ and Homeland Security saying the same things?

I doubt they said "no proof" of fraud. More likely they would (should?) have said, "this isn't a fraud case. The issue is whether properly enacted legislative procedures were followed, regardless of the individuals' motivation"

Rather, "fraud" can be a difficult thing to show because you need to prove the intent of the actor/s engaging in the conduct.

It's much, much easier to show (a) the state had a proper, statutory voting procedure; (b) the vote did not follow that procedure (changed by judges, secretaries of state, local officials, etc.); and (c) the improper vote procedure may have effected the outcome of the election.

Things like voting machines that didn't work right, no verifying of signature, all the stuff we've been reading about.

One does not need to prove "fraud" in order to prove they didn't follow a procedure.

originally posted by: Klassified
IF, and that's a big IF, Alito finds in favor of the state of Texas...

Texas is petitioning the entire Court, you'll need four Justices to agree to take the case.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Klassified
IF, and that's a big IF, Alito finds in favor of the state of Texas...

Texas is petitioning the entire Court, you'll need four Justices to agree to take the case.

True, but what's the outcome IF?

a reply to: Klassified

I don't think they will be taking the case.

Maybe they should just do away with the stupid vote machines & vote counting machines full stop.

Almost every country I can think of has pen + paper and then counts by hand. India can manage to count 610 million votes within 24 hours using that method.

I really don't see the advantage to this trainwreck. Aside from the ability to commit vote fraud. But surely that wouldn't be a factor for the high and mighty political class that rule America...

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Klassified

I don't think they will be taking the case.

Ya know what??


I wouldn't bet against you here.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You can contribute something productive to the conversation.

You can keep quiet and not post.

Or you can post a criticism that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Grown ups would choose one of the first two.

I've been a lawyer almost 30 years. I don't argue with kids. Good luck.

originally posted by: Snarl
Ya know what??


I wouldn't bet against you here.

If they don't ignore it outright I have a feeling that the plaintiffs will be directed to file in Federal Court first which would mean the suit would not get in before the safe harbor date.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Snarl
Ya know what??


I wouldn't bet against you here.

If they don't ignore it outright I have a feeling that the plaintiffs will be directed to file in Federal Court first which would mean the suit would not get in before the safe harbor date.

And the Safe Harbor date is today by the way...

In other cases, however, the Court, centering its attention upon the elements of a case or controversy, has declined jurisdiction. In Alabama v. Arizona,1063 where Alabama sought to enjoin nineteen states from regulating or prohibiting the sale of convict-made goods, the Court went far beyond holding that it had no jurisdiction, and indicated that jurisdiction of suits between states will be exercised only when absolutely necessary, that the equity requirements in a suit between states are more exacting than in a suit between private persons, that the threatened injury to a plaintiff state must be of great magnitude and imminent, and that the burden on the plaintiff state to establish all the elements of a case is greater than the burden generally required by a petitioner seeking an injunction in cases between private parties.

Legal Information Institute - Cornell University.

I'd love to see Texas prove voter and election fraud. No one else has been able to.

What an awesome day? God I hope Breitbart isn't lying through their asses.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
And the Safe Harbor date is today by the way...

Yes, that's why I mentioned it. I expect both the Pennsylvania case and this one to not have an impact.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Snarl
Ya know what??


I wouldn't bet against you here.

If they don't ignore it outright I have a feeling that the plaintiffs will be directed to file in Federal Court first which would mean the suit would not get in before the safe harbor date.

Might not be able to if other states join Texas ... that may be the key.

This Court is the only forum that can delay the deadline for the appointment of presidential electors under 3 U.S.C. §§ 5, 7. To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed. Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Klassified

I don't think they will be taking the case.

I can actually see that as a possibility, but they've surprised us before. Interesting times we live in, eh?

a reply to: Snarl

They're asking for too much which is why I don't think the petition will be granted if even heard.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Snarl
Ya know what??


I wouldn't bet against you here.

If they don't ignore it outright I have a feeling that the plaintiffs will be directed to file in Federal Court first which would mean the suit would not get in before the safe harbor date.

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.