7 States Join Texas Lawsuit to Overturn UNCONSTITUTIONAL Election, Its Happening

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: zatara
Of course will the supreme court not make it too obvious that they can not deny and judge this case. Thats why they will appoint a commission to investigate the fraud...

The Supreme Court didn't appoint the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, Johnson did by Executive Order.

I know, you are right...would it not be just wonderful if Trump himself appoint a commission by executive order. What I am trying to say is that there are ways for those who decide what is going to happen in the USA how to screw with the US citizens minds. Make the people believe and understand that everything is going to be alright and justice and truth will be served.

Today, Six of the states have upgraded their support to the level of co-Plaintiffs, with Texas and President Trump.

Source: twitter.com...

originally posted by: carewemust
Today, Six of the states have upgraded their support to the level of co-Plaintiffs, with Texas and President Trump.

Source: twitter.com...

Let's be honest here. Why does anyone think the SC will even consider taking the case, much less whiz all over the rights of states to conduct elections as their legislators and officials (both Dem and Rep) see fit?

There is a better chance of Tom Petty suddenly appearing from beyond the veil and singing, presumably for the Constitution, "Dont Do Me Like That".

It's not going to happen.

originally posted by: MrBadExample

originally posted by: carewemust
Today, Six of the states have upgraded their support to the level of co-Plaintiffs, with Texas and President Trump.

Source: twitter.com...

Let's be honest here. Why does anyone think the SC will even consider taking the case, much less whiz all over the rights of states to conduct elections as their legislators and officials (both Dem and Rep) see fit?

There is a better chance of Tom Petty suddenly appearing from beyond the veil and singing, presumably for the Constitution, "Dont Do Me Like That".

It's not going to happen.

The argument is that in allowing election officials, governors, and judges to decide how to conduct their elections, they have whizzed all over the rights of states to conduct elections as their legislators see fit.

Pennsylvania has responded to the Texas case's accusations.

Essentially saying the lower courts agreed with us and our actions, so you should also.

mobile.twitter.com...

a reply to: carewemust

I only skimmed it, but i think they will need to amend. It's framed like, "Texas is trying to tell four states what to do." But, it's not just Texas anymore so it's not very compelling. Not PA's fault they didn't know other states would sign on, but their argument just doesn't fit well, now.



EDITED to add: Gryphon...PA did include your point about Texas changing their early voting period.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
But, it's not just Texas anymore...

It's still just Texas, they are the only Plaintiff.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
But, it's not just Texas anymore...

It's still just Texas, they are the only Plaintiff.

Ok, but there are other states that have filed a Motion to Intervene as Plaintiffs.


EDIT: Link

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Which means that two things have to happen: 1) The Supreme Court needs to accept the Texas petition and 2) Permit those States to join as a Plaintiff.

At this point there is only one Plaintiff, Texas.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So, if that happens...then PA would need to amend their complaint. The motion to intervene says the new states want to file their own pleadings.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

If the petitions differ in their specific claims.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

At the very least they would have to refer to the new states specifically.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm sure but that's just a simple change.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes...but there is this element of 'Texas is trying to tell four sister states what to do.' It just doesn't work if it's several states, kwim?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Yes...but there is this element of 'Texas is trying to tell four sister states what to do.' It just doesn't work if it's several states, kwim?

Again, it isn't several States, you're putting the cart before two horses.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes...I am assuming you are understanding that. All hypothetical.

Just throwing this info out there for those interested in a per state summary of the lawsuit and the possible violations of the State’s Constitutional laws and the COTUS.

Pennsylvania: Boockvar, who was appointed by Governor Tom Wolf, a Democrat, in 2019, unilaterally and “unconstitutionally” ditched the state’s signature verification statute and extended the deadline for receipt of mail-in ballots, including envelopes without a postmark, until three days past Election Day. As I explained in this column, Pennsylvania election law expressly prohibits the processing of mail-in ballots until 7 a.m. on Election Day; that rule was clearly violated. Pennsylvania also does not permit ballots to be “cured,” another law local election officials ignored. “This number of constitutionally tainted ballots far exceeds the approximately 81,660 votes separating the candidates.”

Michigan: In May 2020, the Democratic Secretary of State announced her office would send, without any request necessary, mail-in ballot applications to all 7.7 million registered Michigan voters in direct contravention of state election law. The legislature only authorized local election clerks, not Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, to send absentee ballot applications. “Secretary Benson lacked the authority to distribute a single absentee voter application—much less the millions of absentee ballot applications Secretary Benson chose to flood across Michigan.” Election workers in Wayne County, home of Detroit, broke several election laws. (The TCF Center was the only counting facility for city of Detroit ballots.) Signature verification requirements were ignored, observers were kept far away from the process or denied access altogether, and workers ran “the same ballot through the tabulators multiple times.” Biden’s margin of “victory” in Michigan is around 146,000 votes.

Georgia: Paxton, et al claim that the number of unlawfully handled mail-in ballots in the Peach State “far exceeds the margin of victory” between Biden and Trump. (Biden is purportedly ahead by fewer than 13,000 votes.) Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger—who penned an op-ed in Monday’s Wall Street Journal claiming that the 2020 presidential election was the “most secure in history” and accusing President Trump of running “the Stacey Abrams playbook” by refusing to concede—made “unconstitutional change[s]” to Georgia election law. In March 2020, Raffensperger and the state’s Democratic Party reached a settlement that made it much harder to challenge signatures on absentee ballots: That change was not approved by the state legislature. Raffensperger’s self-aggrandizing commentary notwithstanding, the rejection rate for mail-in ballots this year is beyond implausible. Only 4,786 absentee ballots out of more than 1.3 million cast were rejected in 2020 or .37 percent of the total. In 2016, however, 13,677 mail-in votes were rejected out of 213,033 ballots or 6.42 percent. Nearly three times as many mail-in votes were rejected four years ago even though more than six times as many mail-in votes were cast in 2020.

Wisconsin: Election officials in the Badger State broke several state laws; as I wrote here, county election workers doctored certification envelopes in an effort to illegally “cure” mail-in ballots, a practice not permitted under state law. Like in Pennsylvania, mail-in ballots were inspected before Election Day against state election law. Over 500 unmanned “drop boxes,” primarily in the state’s five largest cities, were used in the election, a violation of state law that requires absentee ballots be mailed or delivered in person. Democrats exploited the COVID-19 crisis by encouraging voters to use the “indefinitely confined” rule to circumvent absentee ballot requirements. Nearly 216,000 Wisconsin voters used the exemption to vote in the 2020 election, a nearly four-fold increase over 2016. The suit asks the court to declare that the four states “administered the 2020 presidential election in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment” and essentially nullify any presidential electors appointed in those states.

amgreatness.com...

The city of Detroit just filed an amicus brief supporting Michigan and the other three defendant States.

mobile.twitter.com...

a reply to: carewemust

I'll need to read that one...but I'm having a hard time GAF what Detroit has to say in this matter.