From what I have heard and read this morning about this Texas case is that it is not going after any fraud claims.

It is strictly going after matters of law and how the states violated the constitution in a couple of ways.

It seems to me that there is a case to be made. Even Ted Cruz said last night that one state suing other states is a way to bring this all together into one case before SCOTUS.

I think SCOTUS hears the case and they will end up agreeing with the plaintiff and send this back to each state legislature for them to determine how the electors are selected.

John Maplethorpe said:

---

Agvet12 said:

---

John Maplethorpe said:

---

A majority of senators including several Republicans said Trump was guilty on the facts on impeachment, just not worthy of removal.

Sidney's wild fantasies are nothing like that.

---

Lol at Romney being used as "bi partisan"

---

He wasn't the only one. 6 Republican senators said the house effectively proved its case.

---

I think more than 6 GOP Senators would say today that election fraud has been 'effectively' proven, and votes/decisions don't matter. Is that the new standard somehow?

I must have missed that standard in law school, but I didn't have Obama or Steve Vladeck as a professor so I'll have to defer I guess to you, BMX, and of course the real board constitutional law authority extraordinaire, Georgiag. I think the latter has even argued a case before SCOTUS. He's the MFBarnes of authority.

You're just trying to entice me to buy stars

eric76 said:

---

Cassius said:

---

executive branch changing state laws = narrow technicality /Maplethorpe


What a dumbass response.

---

In what state did the executive change the wording of the statutes?

Or do you think that interpretation of the statutes somehow amounts to changing of the law?

---

Hey genius, in Pennsylvania, the SoS decided that since the legislature wouldn't make the changes Dems wanted, they'd go to court to demand the court did it for them. The SoS is appointed by the governor and is part of the executive branch there.

Are you really a lawyer?

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

From what I have heard and read this morning about this Texas case is that it is not going after any fraud claims.

It is strictly going after matters of law and how the states violated the constitution in a couple of ways.

It seems to me that there is a case to be made. Even Ted Cruz said last night that one state suing other states is a way to bring this all together into one case before SCOTUS.

I think SCOTUS hears the case and they will end up agreeing with the plaintiff and send this back to each state legislature for them to determine how the electors are selected.

---

There's only a minuscule chance the court agrees to hear the case. There's a less than minuscule chance it gets ruled favorably for Texas.

HTownAg98 said:

---

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

From what I have heard and read this morning about this Texas case is that it is not going after any fraud claims.

It is strictly going after matters of law and how the states violated the constitution in a couple of ways.

It seems to me that there is a case to be made. Even Ted Cruz said last night that one state suing other states is a way to bring this all together into one case before SCOTUS.

I think SCOTUS hears the case and they will end up agreeing with the plaintiff and send this back to each state legislature for them to determine how the electors are selected.

---

There's only a minuscule chance the court agrees to hear the case. There's a less than minuscule chance it gets ruled favorably for Texas.

---

Why do you think this?

notex said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Cassius said:

---

executive branch changing state laws = narrow technicality /Maplethorpe


What a dumbass response.

---

In what state did the executive change the wording of the statutes?

Or do you think that interpretation of the statutes somehow amounts to changing of the law?

---

Hey genius, in Pennsylvania, the SoS decided that since the legislature wouldn't make the changes Dems wanted, they'd go to court to demand the court did it for them. The SoS is appointed by the governor and is part of the executive branch there.

Are you really a lawyer?

---

If the law says the election is over at 8pm on election day, voting ends, but the executive branch says "nah, we say 8pm 3 days later", that's just an interpretation.

How damn stupid is that?

aggiehawg said:

---

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit has a salient observation.

Quote:

---

If the Supreme Court can revamp state legislative districting in the name of fairness, I see nothing to stop if from supervising state procedures for electing presidents.

---

---

I love that POV. I hate that someone has to use it, but if the Left wants to stick their nose in, then let's help them get a good smell.

And no Eric, giant government if fundamentally dangerous, and in the long run (long run being 50 to 100 years), will always collapse due to corruption.

Cassius said:

---

executive branch changing state laws = narrow technicality /Maplethorpe


What a dumbass response.

---

Right, throwing out the vote in any state that ever had absentee ballots based on a narrow interpretation of some wording in their constitution is totally reasonable. This is really gonna happen, and you are very smart lawyer internet guy.

Quote:

---

Why do you think this?

---

I also wonder about this. Nearly every attorney on here has stated with a fairly certain tone, that SCOTUS won't here it.

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

From what I have heard and read this morning about this Texas case is that it is not going after any fraud claims.

It is strictly going after matters of law and how the states violated the constitution in a couple of ways.

It seems to me that there is a case to be made. Even Ted Cruz said last night that one state suing other states is a way to bring this all together into one case before SCOTUS.

I think SCOTUS hears the case and they will end up agreeing with the plaintiff and send this back to each state legislature for them to determine how the electors are selected.

---

It seems to me that there are a lot of questions of fact to be determined before they can get to the point that they issue any order.

Presumably that means that both sides will be heard on the matter before they have a decision. It wouldn't be proper for them to hear from just the plaintiff and issue a decision without giving the defendants the opportunity to object to what the plaintiff clams as fact.

Cassius said:

---

Maplethorpe, you're on my ignore list, hoss. The stuff you post is utter, illogical nonsense. I only see it if others quote it. That assertion is just so damn stupid, i could not resist the temptation to quote it.

---

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

From what I have heard and read this morning about this Texas case is that it is not going after any fraud claims.

It is strictly going after matters of law and how the states violated the constitution in a couple of ways.

It seems to me that there is a case to be made. Even Ted Cruz said last night that one state suing other states is a way to bring this all together into one case before SCOTUS.

I think SCOTUS hears the case and they will end up agreeing with the plaintiff and send this back to each state legislature for them to determine how the electors are selected.

---

There's only a minuscule chance the court agrees to hear the case. There's a less than minuscule chance it gets ruled favorably for Texas.

---

Why do you think this?

---

It starts here.

CreakinDeacon said:

---

---

Does docketed mean that it is getting heard or that it simply is with the justices to decide if they want to hear it?

CreakinDeacon said:

---

---

That shouldn't be surprising. I think that it mainly just means that it is going to receive some attention from the court, but then that shouldn't be surprising. Am I wrong about this?

eric76 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Number 3 is a huge issue. Kent says the legislatures cannot ignore previous election laws. Paxton says they can.

---

So if Paxton is right, can PA legislature ignore PA law and allow mail in votes for president?

Unfortunately I think you are right. , I don't think we will get an answer to any of this, but they are definitely fascinating questions

---

The Pennsylvania Constitution does not determine the legal method(s) of voting. Instead, it explicitly recognizes the methods of voting found in the law as being legal. Act 77 which was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor added mail-in voting as a legal method of voting. Thus, mail-in voting is recognized by the Pennsylvania Constitution as being legal.

---

Then why the pending PA constitutional amendment asking for no-fault absentee voting?

What is the difference between no-fault absentee voting and mail-in voting?

This argument is incredibly weak.

Much more likely that SCOTUS finds some other issue with this case than try and bye the argument that Act 77 doesn't violate the PA constitution.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

eric76 said:

---

CreakinDeacon said:

---

---

That shouldn't be surprising. I think that it mainly just means that it is going to receive some attention from the court, but then that shouldn't be surprising. Am I wrong about this?

---

No, for once you are right. Since it has been docketed, there will be some type of written disposition also docketed whether they accept or refuse to hear the case. That could be a per curiam short decision or a longer decision.

Yeah. I don't agree that this is what Texas claims.

What they claim is that the executive has to follow election laws.

Honestly, this is in line with Bush v Gore. That is kind of settled.

The reason it is unlikely to get heard is a myriad of procedural issues, the situation where many of the claimed facts are still in dispute, the constitutional issues, due process issues, etc.

If anything, I think the fact that SCOTUS took up the Kelly case makes me think that the issues related to election officials breaking the law is not going to get very much leniency.

BusterAg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Number 3 is a huge issue. Kent says the legislatures cannot ignore previous election laws. Paxton says they can.

---

So if Paxton is right, can PA legislature ignore PA law and allow mail in votes for president?

Unfortunately I think you are right. , I don't think we will get an answer to any of this, but they are definitely fascinating questions

---

The Pennsylvania Constitution does not determine the legal method(s) of voting. Instead, it explicitly recognizes the methods of voting found in the law as being legal. Act 77 which was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor added mail-in voting as a legal method of voting. Thus, mail-in voting is recognized by the Pennsylvania Constitution as being legal.

---

Then why the pending PA constitutional amendment asking for no-fault absentee voting?

What is the difference between no-fault absentee voting and mail-in voting?

This argument is incredibly weak.

Much more likely that SCOTUS finds some other issue with this case than try and bye the argument that Act 77 doesn't violate the PA constitution.

---

IANAL, so my simpleton mind is probably wrong.

But even if the amendment is working its way through their process, does that mean that we can just disregard what is CURRENTLY the law? Also, I believe the last step is to put the vote to the people of PA to finalize?

What if the people say no?

Why should you go by what may or may not happen? Shouldn't you use the current law?

BusterAg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Number 3 is a huge issue. Kent says the legislatures cannot ignore previous election laws. Paxton says they can.

---

So if Paxton is right, can PA legislature ignore PA law and allow mail in votes for president?

Unfortunately I think you are right. , I don't think we will get an answer to any of this, but they are definitely fascinating questions

---

The Pennsylvania Constitution does not determine the legal method(s) of voting. Instead, it explicitly recognizes the methods of voting found in the law as being legal. Act 77 which was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor added mail-in voting as a legal method of voting. Thus, mail-in voting is recognized by the Pennsylvania Constitution as being legal.

---

Then why the pending PA constitutional amendment asking for no-fault absentee voting?

What is the difference between no-fault absentee voting and mail-in voting?

This argument is incredibly weak.

Much more likely that SCOTUS finds some other issue with this case than try and bye the argument that Act 77 doesn't violate the PA constitution.

---

It wouldn't be surprising if SCOTUS wanted out of the case without wasting a lot of time in something that isn't going to change the election.

But if you look at Act 77, it is clear that they went out of the way to keep mail-in voting separate from absentee voting even though they are treated pretty much the same.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-supreme-court-over-election

LOL, more free help for poor Eric. FWIW, SCOTUS has generally heard 'sufficiently significant' cases between the states where original jurisdiction properly has existed since the 50's. This is pretty darn significant; I think they will actually hear it.

And no, it's not a matter of fact finding, the facts asserted by Texas are essentially uncontested (notice Pa. SoS didn't contest any in their response). The issue is simply a matter of state court rulings vs. their legislatures/laws, equal protection matters, and what remedy might apply.

For the legal novices here, courts often look to a proper remedy as a careful balancing act, but also seek to make sure precedent is helpful in the future (note; this doesn't apply to Obama judges). The clear abuses (well, the 99 percent of us who are not CCP members/supporters) we have seen need to have some negative ramifications/possible penalties/judicial precedent for state courts to weigh in the future. If SCOTUS is responsible, it certainly is the more peaceable way out of this Chicom imbroglio.

HTownAg98 said:

---

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

From what I have heard and read this morning about this Texas case is that it is not going after any fraud claims.

It is strictly going after matters of law and how the states violated the constitution in a couple of ways.

It seems to me that there is a case to be made. Even Ted Cruz said last night that one state suing other states is a way to bring this all together into one case before SCOTUS.

I think SCOTUS hears the case and they will end up agreeing with the plaintiff and send this back to each state legislature for them to determine how the electors are selected.

---

There's only a minuscule chance the court agrees to hear the case. There's a less than minuscule chance it gets ruled favorably for Texas.

---

Why do you think this?

---

It starts here.

---

Good read but I wouldn't START there for why SCOTUS won't take this up. Although that court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases between states, it is not mandatory jurisdiction, i.e. the court doesn't HAVE to hear the case. In determining whether to exercise its discretion on hearing cases, the court usually looks to whether the case raises unique issues or could such issues be litigated in another case. Seeing as all of these issues are being litigated in other cases, I find it very difficult to believe that the court will want to hear this case as part of its original jurisdiction.

As for the twitter thread, the contradiction he harps on is a valid point that mirrors a side note raised as between the two PA cases with submissions to the SCOTUS (in one case the petitioners argue electors clause given supremacy and all deference goes to legislature and thus PA court can't interfere; while in the other case petitioners argue legislature's action in Act 77 violates state law and thus invalid).

Although the textualist argument between the electors and elections clauses that twitter thread rants on is valid in my mind, there is case law support for using electors clause cases for interpretation of elections clause cases.

John Maplethorpe said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

John Maplethorpe said:

---

Quote:

---

Well there was this busted water pipe in Fulton Co with weird statistic aborrations. a few lines of SQL code and I can throw away all kinds of stuff

Delete from voterec where recID equals whateverIWant
//then walks to the shredder

---

When one facet of the conspiracy fails simply introduce a larger more implausible conspiracy.

---

Nothing failed. just pointing out other avenues. Sorry you are confused. Unlike you I want to work. I have an esp32 application to code. But ill be around

---

So you admit it couldn't work because of the paper process. You're ballot stuffing hypo would have nothing to do with Dominion.

---

How old are you 10.

Off hand I can see several ways to beat this. All it takes is a big blue democratic urban county like Fulton or DeKalb and a water line break or some other excuse to get 30 minutes alone

Remember the days after the election there were democrat idiots on here trying to justify sorted batch processing to explain statistical abborrations such as 18000 votes going one way. It was easily destroyed by pointing out votes should never ever be sorted before final processing. Should have seen how fast they backtracked. Tripped all over themselves trying to change that narrative.

I believe the dems did sort those votes before processing I would bet the assigned those votes id# based on a processing time stamp. Say something like the # of seconds Since Jan1 1970. Once that is done cheating is a breeze.

Okay have your standard "You dont know what you are talking about BS ready." Oh and dont forget to star your own post.

notex said:

---

LOL, more free help for poor Eric. FWIW, SCOTUS has generally heard 'sufficiently significant' cases between the states where original jurisdiction properly has existed since the 50's. This is pretty darn significant; I think they will actually hear it.

And no, it's not a matter of fact finding, the facts asserted by Texas are essentially uncontested (notice Pa. SoS didn't contest any in their response). The issue is simply a matter of state court rulings vs. their legislatures/laws, equal protection matters, and what remedy might apply.

For the legal novices here, courts often look to a proper remedy as a careful balancing act, but also seek to make sure precedent is helpful in the future (note; this doesn't apply to Obama judges). The clear abuses (well, the 99 percent of us who are not CCP members/supporters) we have seen need to have some negative ramifications/possible penalties/judicial precedent for state courts to weigh in the future. If SCOTUS is responsible, it certainly is the more peaceable way out of this Chicom imbroglio.

---

Since the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases between states, I wouldn't think it would be easy for them to ignore it. But that doesn't mean that they are going to drop everything until everything is settled, either.

The facts are uncontested? Really?

I'm surprised that the Secretary of State from Pennsylvania has responded already. I don't see that on the docket.

notex said:

---

LOL, more free help for poor Eric. FWIW, SCOTUS has generally heard 'sufficiently significant' cases between the states where original jurisdiction properly has existed since the 50's. This is pretty darn significant; I think they will actually hear it.

And no, it's not a matter of fact finding, the facts asserted by Texas are essentially uncontested (notice Pa. SoS didn't contest any in their response). The issue is simply a matter of state court rulings vs. their legislatures/laws, equal protection matters, and what remedy might apply.

For the legal novices here, courts often look to a proper remedy as a careful balancing act, but also seek to make sure precedent is helpful in the future (note; this doesn't apply to Obama judges). The clear abuses (well, the 99 percent of us who are not CCP members/supporters) we have seen need to have some negative ramifications/possible penalties/judicial precedent for state courts to weigh in the future. If SCOTUS is responsible, it certainly is the more peaceable way out of this Chicom imbroglio.

---

The remedy that is already in the Constitution is the 12th Amendment. I seriously doubted they would entertain that route in the early days after the election.

Now I'm not sure with all of the subsequent developments in the myriad of states. Seems to me the Twelfth Amendment or sending it back to the state legislatures to decide under Article II Section One are the only two exit ramps if they take up the case.

Quote:

---

I'm surprised that the Secretary of State from Pennsylvania has responded already. I don't see that on the docket.

---

Different case. Alito ordered them to respond this morning in the Kelly case.

Cassius said:

---

Eric, you're on my ignore list, hoss.

---

probably a good call. i've never seen someone post so much, so often while either not really actually saying anything or just constantly being dead-assed wrong, while digging in their heels and being over-the-top stubborn about it. it's almost impressive if it wasn't so annoying.

another good thing about him being on the ignore list is all the threads become half as long as they were before his feckless bloviating.