D.C. Court of Appeals made a horrible ruling against Trump

a reply to: Threadbarer

By a party with no standing. The party that would have standing didn't file until 12/9.

Which is the contention.

As I asked, if Texas does not have standing in a national election for another states actions of violating their and our Constitutions then where does Texas go?

a reply to: JinMI

Our Constitution pretty much gives states free rein to select electors however they wish.

Texas has no standing to challenge another state's laws or Constitution.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

Our Constitution pretty much gives states free rein to select electors however they wish.

Texas has no standing to challenge another state's laws or Constitution.

That's not the argument.

The argument is if Texas does not have standing against Pennsylvania for violating their own and our Constitution, then where do they have standing.

This isn't Texas concerned with who they elect for their governor.

a reply to: JinMI

Texas has standing in Texas. That is the only election they have standing to challenge.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

Texas has standing in Texas. That is the only election they have standing to challenge.

Facts again disagree with you.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

a reply to: JinMI

Not really. The courts have long established that states have no way over any other state's laws.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Again, that's not the question.


Where it national matters is concerned, as it pertains to say a presidential election, states violating their own constitutions and The Constitution sits squarely in SCOTUS.

We see this playing out in Texas right now over the border for example....

a reply to: JinMI

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

That is all the Constitution says about states and Presidential elections. A state is pretty much free to choose electors however they wish.

There was no argument made by Texas that demonstrated how the Constitution was violated and Texas has no say over Pennsylvania's election laws or constitution.

I really don't know why you're fighting me on this fact so hard considering the Trump-friendly SCOTUS came to the same ruling and is their rationale for throwing out the case in question.

a reply to: Threadbarer

"as the Legislature therof may direct..."

From the Texas v Pennsylvania link:

Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should temporarily prevent Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin from certifying their 2020 election results because changes to those states' election procedures in light of the COVID-19 pandemic violated the Constitution.

Thanks for cementing the factual basis of my position.

a reply to: JinMI

Only his interpretations matter. If it happens and hurts Trump it is constitutional. If it goes Trumps way it is a crazy ruling.

a reply to: JinMI

Yes. That is a summary of what was being sought in this case. How did SCOTUS rule? Let's check your link:

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

a reply to: Threadbarer

You didn't answer my question from last night for some reason.


Did SCOTUS act correctly by relegating abortion to the states?

a reply to: JinMI

There were three separate opinions presented and I can see the legal rationale behind all of them. I may not be happy with the majority opinion but I can't say they didn't back up their argument.

Now back to the topic we were discussing, do you agree with SCOTUS that Texas didn't have standing in the case in question?

a reply to: Threadbarer

Now back to the topic we were discussing, do you agree with SCOTUS that Texas didn't have standing in the case in question?

Nope.

But I'm not deferring my opinion when I cannot back it up...

a reply to: JinMI

You're going to want to tune for this.

How To Listen To Donald Trump’s 14th Amendment Case at the Supreme Court

On Thursday morning, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on Trump v. Anderson, a case about the 14th Amendment and Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on the ballot in Colorado’s presidential primary.

On Thursday morning, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on Trump v. Anderson, a case about the 14th Amendment and Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on the ballot in Colorado’s presidential primary.
.........
The website for PBS NewsHour will carry live audio of arguments on Thursday through this direct link.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Sounds like a good thread for you to author.


I'll be there!

a reply to: network dude

Trump lost the election and complained about it. Al Gore did the same. Trump had a rally. Trump complained to the people at the rally. The people at the rally went to the capitol. A few people started some sh!t. Most if not all have been arrested. Other than complaining, and being president when the riot happened, how did Trump "illegally attempting to stay in power by subverting the peaceful transfer of power after their term ended"?

I know you won't answer, because you don't come back to threads you post in. But others here who are sure this is true can explain what actions Trump took to stay in power. Hint, he complained.

The huge difference between Al Gore in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2020 is that Gore conceded for the good of the country. Guess what, Trump still hasn't conceded. And worse, he's still contending that the 2020 election was stolen. Now you may believe his lies and that is your right. You may believe that everyone that accuses Trump of anything is lying and Trump is always telling the truth. As I've stated before, Trump doesn't listen to anyone unless they agree with him. That's a horrible trait for a leader, unless you actually believe he's right about everything.

As far as his transgressions for Jan 6 go, I will refer you to the Jan 6 hearings. Now you may not believe a word that was said there. I can't help your beliefs. However, they provided testimony that Trump already had a plan in place prior to the Nov 2020 election just in case. It actually started with the 2016 election. You know, when Trump said that 3 million illegals voted. He provided no proof, but his ego couldn't take the loss of the popular vote. And that started to sow the seed of doubt in the election process. When Trump said prior to the 2020 election that if we don't win, the election is fixed, that's a real problem.

Fox News had to pay Dominion almost a billion dollars for their lies. Rudy Giuliani has lost his court cases and filed for bankruptcy. So many others have admitted their roles in trying to overturn the election in return for their testimony. You may also believe that Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger were out to get Donald. Well, they sacrificed their political careers to do so.

And still Donald Trump spouts his ridiculousness. Again, he really should listen to someone else's opinion, though I don't know if he is capable. Or, he can keep spouting off and face more charges in the future. He is his own worst enemy.

Now this is a conspiracy website, so I don't want to quash your views. But I like to look at what's more probable. Is the entire US Judicial system out to get Trump and his allies or did maybe they actually commit felonies. I believe it's the latter. You can believe the former, because you "know" it's true.

The problem with the "they're all out to get Trump" crowd is all they have his speculation and conspiracy theories. There is no proof.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Sounds like a good thread for you to author.


I'll be there!

Nope. I don't think I'll be able to. I think I'm gonna have to pass the baton on that.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What a shame...

a reply to: JinMI

/sarc
HAHA