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

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
So six other AGs are ignorant of the law? That's not a good sign. None of these states have standing in this case. If you think this case will actually be argued in front of the Supreme Court while the Pennsylvania case (where the plaintiff actually had standing) was thrown out you're delusional.

Education and Credentials? I mean, random anon internet poster proclaims Law Degree holding AGs ignorant of the law, I'm kinda curious as to what you do to make such sweeping proclamations? Eh?

You wil not find a more obsequious Trump loyalist than Brian Kemp, Governor of Georgia.

When even Kemp has realized that the inssurectionist effort to crown Trump and trample both our Constitution and our Republic in the process is illegal ... you begin to realize how deep and destructive the issue is.

Kemp said while speaking at the Biennial Institute for Georgia Legislators that legislators appointing their own electors was “not an option.”

“You all will be taking an oath to uphold the laws and constitution of our state and now, more than ever, it is important to remember that thousands of brave men and women have paid the ultimate sacrifice for those laws, that constitution and all that they protect,” Kemp said, according to USA Today.

“I’m confident that each of you will live up to the words and greater calling regardless of political consequences. That’s what I’ve been doing,” he added.

The Hill

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
So six other AGs are ignorant of the law? That's not a good sign. None of these states have standing in this case. If you think this case will actually be argued in front of the Supreme Court while the Pennsylvania case (where the plaintiff actually had standing) was thrown out you're delusional.

Actually, they do have a valid case constitutionally, IF they file on the proper grounds......
Unfortunately, this case may not be heard because they didn't. We'll see.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Kemp said while speaking at the Biennial Institute for Georgia Legislators that legislators appointing their own electors was “not an option.”

He's wrong.

Supreme Court website

For the show me the docket crowd. It’s there to be considered. Seven other states (maybe more) have joined Texas so really hard to ignore this one.

originally posted by: Klassified
Actually, they do have a valid case constitutionally, IF they file on the proper grounds......
Unfortunately, this case may notl be heard because they didn't. We'll see.

I totally disagree that this case isn't on solid footing with respect to standing.

But, I heard about this case on BCPs channel last night, thanks for posting the thread about it, and I totally agree that a new case absolutely needs to be filed based solely on this one issue, to address this problem once and for all.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Supreme Court website

For the show me the docket crowd. It’s there to be considered. Seven other states (maybe more) have joined Texas so really hard to ignore this one.

Your link shows only Texas at this time.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Gryphon66

Kemp said while speaking at the Biennial Institute for Georgia Legislators that legislators appointing their own electors was “not an option.”

He's wrong.

Usually.

But he still said it, which is earth-shattering for the Governor.

BOOOOOOM

a reply to: Phage

BOOOOOOOOM

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Supreme Court website

For the show me the docket crowd. It’s there to be considered. Seven other states (maybe more) have joined Texas so really hard to ignore this one.

Your link shows only Texas at this time.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I totally disagree that this case isn't on solid footing with respect to standing.

I totally hope you're right about that.

Sadly they will not take this case based on standing and precedent or lack thereof. Also will other cases working through each state where the plaintiff may have standing I doubt the SCOTUS would take this on.

I believe this lawsuit is the last stand. What will be interesting here, is how this will be dealt with in the present and how it will effects the union’s future. It’s a serious case, questioning action conducted and how it translates into constitutional rights at it’s core.

I am not sure how the scotus, can ignore this lawsuit running on its current political theme. Yet if they do, I think this will be a reality check, for allot of people who still think this is just a sour grapes political game. History should reveal eventually the ramifications in association with PA’s unconstitutional mail in ballots. What that means, is just because it’s not effecting you now eventually it will for example, encouraging additional governments in the union to adopt this behavior.

Not saying it’s right or wrong, just an observation. Man I tell you this current climate, on this planet is Conducive, for all things bad. I never thought I would ever see what is happening in the USA right now, it’s very alarming. I am afraid most people don’t see it because they are to caught up in the political pandering between democrats vs republicans. It is very important to be an independent thinker, that is the only way to peak into the truths.

It's going to really hurt to find out that the Supreme Court is also Deep State.

2nd line.

What's next?

When are they going to Sue the SCOTUS?

That's the real Kraken...

For decades, Republicans have railed against frivolous lawsuits that clog the courts with specious claims, sometimes simply to grab attention or make a political point.

Now, in the increasingly ridiculous tenure of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, such suits are apparently part of the toolkit.

By Paxton’s strange accounting, states should be able to intervene in their counterparts’ election procedures. It’s a silly argument that the court should reject completely.

And it abruptly cuts against the very states’ rights arguments Texas has made for decades about election laws. If Paxton were to prevail, imagine the attorney general of California licking his chops at the chance to go after Texas’ voter ID requirements.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram

a reply to: sirlancelot

It is a question of the equal protection clause. That the rights retained by the people supersede the rights of the state. You know, that thing that allows abortion and marriages be legal in all 50 states but prevents Jim Crow laws in certain states.

This can unify national standards of what eligible registered voter is. Because right now some states need 30 days residency and others 180 days. Or that a felon can vote while in prison or on probation or never again depending on which state you are in.

This goes far beyond Trump and Biden/Harris.