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

a reply to: Nyiah


Yes, that is what Amici curiae means. However, a higher court would probably prefer a single party suing on one issue than several parties having the same concern bringing up separate cases. Thus Amici curiae in my limited understanding.

Sort of a class action suit but much more encompassing.

originally posted by: Fools
a reply to: Nyiah


Yes, that is what Amici curiae means. However, a higher court would probably prefer a single party suing on one issue than several parties having the same concern bringing up separate cases. Thus Amici curiae in my limited understanding.

Sort of a class action suit but much more encompassing.

Class action-like, but more encompassing is a good way to put it.

It's definitely worth noting, even if it ends up a dud case. When the hell was the last time we had states come together on something this critically important in this manner?

a reply to: Fools

So if enough states petition the Supreme Court they should be required to hear a case regardless of whether the case is valid or if the petitioners have standing?

If 10 states filed a petition with the Supreme Court to ban firearms should the Supreme Court be required to hear the case even though the result was a foregone conclusion?

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Fools
a reply to: Nyiah


Yes, that is what Amici curiae means. However, a higher court would probably prefer a single party suing on one issue than several parties having the same concern bringing up separate cases. Thus Amici curiae in my limited understanding.

Sort of a class action suit but much more encompassing.

Class action-like, but more encompassing is a good way to put it.

It's definitely worth noting, even if it ends up a dud case. When the hell was the last time we had states come together on something this critically important in this manner?

It's not a good way to put it. Amici are simply parties that claim to either have a stake in the outcome of the suit or claim to have a valuable perspective for the court to consider. It is nothing like a class action lawsuit, nor is it comparable to a multiparty lawsuit. These are all very different things. Ask questions when you don't understand. Otherwise you are just passing your own misunderstanding on to others.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Fools

So if enough states petition the Supreme Court they should be required to hear a case regardless of whether the case is valid or if the petitioners have standing?

If 10 states filed a petition with the Supreme Court to ban firearms should the Supreme Court be required to hear the case even though the result was a foregone conclusion?

Moreover, the decision as to whether a state joins this lawsuit is often left to the discretion of the attorney general--a single elected official that may or may not hold views consistent with the electorate of the state, the state legislature, or the governor. States joining on is not meaningless but it's significance is still fairly little on a case with zero chance of success like this one.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
... left to the discretion of...a single elected official that may or may not hold views consistent with...the state legislature...

Please note: This is the legal argument offered by TX, in this case.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Fools
Not sure if it has been mentioned, but now there are now literally 17 states in said lawsuit.

No.

One State, one Presidential candidate.

The rest are Amici.

Add Arizona to officially supporting Texas.

From the Arizona attorney general.

mobile.twitter.com...

originally posted by: Nyiah

Class action-like, but more encompassing is a good way to put it.

It's definitely worth noting, even if it ends up a dud case. When the hell was the last time we had states come together on something this critically important in this manner?

What is critically important?...people voted in the election, in record numbers, bastard Trump is discouraging voting, that ...that's as plain as the nose on your face, especially if it doesn't have his name on the ticket.

So, Texas decides to make an issue of what is something more of a state issue, helped by John C. Eastman, (who seems more like Baldrick... of, "I have a cunning plan" fame, and another piece of shiite), who was also responsible for the Kamala Harris debacle on birthright.

Let's not forget the timeline either, EC votes coming up very soon Trump demanding courage from the Supreme Court US...what a farce!

There are now a total of 19 states supporting this US Supreme Court lawsuit.

The 19 states are:
Texas plus Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia.

For Ohio see this news article:
www.msn.com...
For the remaining 18 states see:
www.dailywire.com...

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Fools

So if enough states petition the Supreme Court they should be required to hear a case regardless of whether the case is valid or if the petitioners have standing?

If 10 states filed a petition with the Supreme Court to ban firearms should the Supreme Court be required to hear the case even though the result was a foregone conclusion?

They are not required - to my understanding, but they probably would and state whether those states concerns were constitutional or not.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Nyiah

Class action-like, but more encompassing is a good way to put it.

It's definitely worth noting, even if it ends up a dud case. When the hell was the last time we had states come together on something this critically important in this manner?

What is critically important?...people voted in the election, in record numbers, bastard Trump is discouraging voting, that ...that's as plain as the nose on your face, especially if it doesn't have his name on the ticket.

So, Texas decides to make an issue of what is something more of a state issue, helped by John C. Eastman, (who seems more like Baldrick... of, "I have a cunning plan" fame, and another piece of shiite), who was also responsible for the Kamala Harris debacle on birthright.

Let's not forget the timeline either, EC votes coming up very soon

Trump demanding courage from the Supreme Court US...what a farce!

It is simple, the states that they are "suing", changed existing voting laws passed by their legislatures via the court system which is not how that works (meaning unconstitutional). All voting laws per state are required to be legislated, not changed by judicial fiat.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Fools
a reply to: Nyiah


Yes, that is what Amici curiae means. However, a higher court would probably prefer a single party suing on one issue than several parties having the same concern bringing up separate cases. Thus Amici curiae in my limited understanding.

Sort of a class action suit but much more encompassing.

Class action-like, but more encompassing is a good way to put it.

It's definitely worth noting, even if it ends up a dud case. When the hell was the last time we had states come together on something this critically important in this manner?

The civil war would be my guess.

Reminder
This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for POLITE political debate will be enforced.
That does not include off topic posts and bickering.....those are not included in debate.


Trolling, And What To Do About It


Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Community Announcement re: Decorum
Terms And Conditions Of Use



You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.
This could include temporary POSTING BANS.



and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Fools
Not sure if it has been mentioned, but now there are now literally 17 states in said lawsuit.

No.

One State, one Presidential candidate.

The rest are Amici.

Add Arizona to officially supporting Texas.

From the Arizona attorney general.

mobile.twitter.com...

Yes, as I said.

Amicus curiae.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Why would so many states throw they're weight behind this if its all for nothing like you and the law have continously stated?

originally posted by: samuelsson
a reply to: Gryphon66

Why would so many states throw they're weight behind this if its all for nothing like you and the law have continously stated?

The person deciding whether to join these suits is usually a partisan elected official, or an official appointed by the governor. It costs them very little to do so and allows them to show their loyalty to Trump. The only cost of these lawsuits is to tax payers. It says nothing about the merits of the case.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

You think these people wont face any backlash from the voters in the states they represent or from the incoming administration? They talk openly about finding trump supporters,enablers and the need to purge them from society. It looks to me they're putting career and security on the line in "defending" Trump. Even tho they are only doing whay "they" think are in the best intrest of the people they represent.

a reply to: Fools

Actually, you don't have that quite right....

The basis of the TX suit, (along with the 18 other states), is that these states violated the Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution.

Basically, these states did NOT make appropriate changes through their state legislatures but instead simply unilaterally imposed their own "rules" on election criteria which is outside their jurisdiction as established by the Constitution.

AS a result of these states violating the constitution in a federal election, voters and citizens in other states were harmed through disenfranchisement.

Here is the real deal breaker other states that were not named in the suit did similar things, mostly changing the procedure for mail in ballots because of the pandemic via executive order instead of going through the state legislature process. Those other states Trump won.

This is clear they are only targeting states Biden lost, in hopes of thwarting the election and will of the people.

If the roles were reversed and Texas was being sued because another state did like it's voting procedures, the folks who are supporting this would be extremely upset.

The cognitive dissonance and hyprocasy here is astounding!