ttu_85 said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

fooz said:

---

Alabama to join Texas lawsuit.

Also heard South Carolina will as well.

---

so in other words, this is all a big tantrum by red states over those big mean blue states causing an election result they didn't like.

these people are so vapid, empty, and predictable.

---

Especially all these new socks. Its as if its all the same person

---

They probably are.

He may be a hack, but Internet lawyer Eric76 is taking Internet lawyer BusterAg behind the woodshed on this one.

larry culpepper said:

---

fooz said:

---

Alabama to join Texas lawsuit.

Also heard South Carolina will as well.

---

so in other words, this is all a big tantrum by red states over those big mean blue states cities causing an election result they didn't like.

these people are so vapid, empty, and predictable.

---

Just to correct your misguided thinking.

eric76 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

marvda1 said:

---

let's take it to vote if the people of Texas want to use our money to keep a person in office who lost and won't admit it. oh I forgot it might get rigged.

---

Kinda like the people of PA were supposed to take a vote on a ballot to change their election laws?

---

Actually, Pennsylvania law on the issue is quite clear. The Constitution refers to the state law on what are the legal voting methods provided that those methods maintain the secrecy of the ballot.

---

You are just a partisan hack.

Why do you just advance the legal arguments of one side of an issue? Why not try some actual analysis.

You referenced the law above. It clearly lists the types of people that can request an absentee ballot.

The language is what it is.

Just because a Dem lawyer says means something, doesn't mean that it does. That is what trials are for.

---

Under Pennsylvania Law, the list of classes of people in Article VII, Section 14 is not a complete list of everyone legally able to vote by absentee ballot in Pennsylvania. They very specifically Amended their Constitution for the purpose of allowing the criteria of who can vote by absentee ballot to be set in the statutes instead of having to keep amending their Constitution every time.

Let's have a trial.

---

Not, its not. It's exhaustive.

See, I can add as much as you do to these threads.

Surprised Oklahoma hasn't signed up yet.

It tells me something that you feel that way.


1) Eric is making the impact that he wants to, even though he's vapid. All he does is restate the Dem arguments as they are presented in their pleadings.
2) You aren't paying very close attention.

BTW, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one.

Ferg said:

---

Surprised Oklahoma hasn't signed up yet.

---

They probably will. Their AG is getting hammered by okies on twitter to join.

When the case is dismissed do those states lose their EC votes for 2024?

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

Alabama in...

---

Did they actually file a petition or just issue this mealy mouth statement?

Wow the election that never ends. I guess we should have expected our partisan, litigious society to devolve into endless election lawsuits. Great precedent to set for future generations when you think you've lost the election - justified as "never stopping the fight!". Will be interesting to see what the Dems learn from this playbook in '24 when Kamala loses to some new R candidate and the political center further deteriorates.

This is a comical win-win strategy for KP. The R partisans will eat it up, it distracts from his own issues, he knows he won't be responsible for a constitutional crisis of his making bc it's not going anywhere, and the R taxpayers can foot the legal/admin bill in the name of some twisted sense of protecting democracy

Beached Whale said:

---

Wow the election that never ends. I guess we should have expected our partisan, litigious society to devolve into endless election lawsuits. Great precedent to set for future generations when you think you've lost the election - justified as "never stopping the fight!". Will be interesting to see what the Dems learn from this playbook in '24 when Kamala loses to some new R candidate and the political center further deteriorates.

This is a comical win-win strategy for KP. The R partisans will eat it up, it distracts from his own issues, he knows he won't be responsible for a constitutional crisis of his making bc it's not going anywhere, and the R taxpayers can foot the legal/admin bill in the name of some twisted sense of protecting democracy

---

Kind of like the last 4 years of #resist and russia russia russia, huh?

Sarge 91 said:

---

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

Alabama in...

---

Did they actually file a petition or just issue this mealy mouth statement?

---

So far, the docket only shows Texas. It is probably reasonable to assume that the docket will be updated during normal business hours tomorrow.

Also, note the wording of the statement from Alabama. They didn't say that they have done anything other than that they are paying attention to what goes on with Texas. It sounds like they may join in if the Supreme Court decides to hear the case.

Beached Whale said:

---

Wow the election that never ends. I guess we should have expected our partisan, litigious society to devolve into endless election lawsuits. Great precedent to set for future generations when you think you've lost the election - justified as "never stopping the fight!". Will be interesting to see what the Dems learn from this playbook in '24 when Kamala loses to some new R candidate and the political center further deteriorates.

This is a comical win-win strategy for KP. The R partisans will eat it up, it distracts from his own issues, he knows he won't be responsible for a constitutional crisis of his making bc it's not going anywhere, and the R taxpayers can foot the legal/admin bill in the name of some twisted sense of protecting democracy

---

I'm not looking forward to future elections when Democrat states file suit against Texas.

There actually was a lawsuit earlier this year against Texas, but it didn't seem to get much attention on TexAgs. That lawsuit was an effort to force states with a winner-take-all choosing of electors to replace it with electors chosen proportionally to the vote.

Texas's new lawsuit sure makes it a lot harder to find articles about this lawsuit, but here is one article at https://apnews.com/article/164ce1b7ab60baebc2d5c5a4f1c22372

From the article:

Quote:

---

The winner-take-all system Texas and 47 other states use to assign Electoral College presidential votes is constitutional, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans unanimously upheld a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the Texas system. It was the latest defeat for organizations challenging such systems in Texas and three other states. Cases are pending at the appellate level in at least two of those cases.

Domingo Garcia, national president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, a lead plaintiff in the case, said he expects the issue to wind up at the Supreme Court. LULAC said in a news release that it was considering its next move. The league and its allies could request a rehearing by the full 5th Circuit, which has 16 active members, or go straight to the Supreme Court.

The 5th Circuit ruling cited appellate and Supreme Court decisions dating back to the 1960s that have upheld the winner-take-all system. It rejected challengers' assertions that electors should be allocated proportionately, based on a percentage of the popular vote for each presidential candidate.

---

Beached Whale said:

---

Wow the election that never ends. I guess we should have expected our partisan, litigious society to devolve into endless election lawsuits. Great precedent to set for future generations when you think you've lost the election - justified as "never stopping the fight!". Will be interesting to see what the Dems learn from this playbook in '24 when Kamala loses to some new R candidate and the political center further deteriorates.

This is a comical win-win strategy for KP. The R partisans will eat it up, it distracts from his own issues, he knows he won't be responsible for a constitutional crisis of his making bc it's not going anywhere, and the R taxpayers can foot the legal/admin bill in the name of some twisted sense of protecting democracy

---

Hopefully, what Dems learn, is that it is important to follow election law, unlike their behavior in 2020.

fooz said:

---

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, SC and South Dakota.

---

The south 2.0 will include the central and mountain states.

Sarge 91 said:

---

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

Alabama in...

---

Did they actually file a petition or just issue this mealy mouth statement?

---

This is what I'm trying to figure out.

IN WHAT CAPACITY ARE THESE STATES "JOINING"?

It looks like the states have not officially joined.

We are keeping the stars and stripes this time. Let them fly their hammer and sickle.

ruddyduck said:

---

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.

---

My list is growing by the day. Without it Forum 16 has become almost unreadable for all the garbage being posted. I imagine that's part of their plan for one of the few places where conservative viewpoints can still be heard. Be so obnoxious and troll so hard people get sick of it and start tuning out.

Good plan. Soon the only posts you'll be able to see will be from all the Barnes socks.

Quote:

---

It tells me something that you feel that way.

---

It should tell you a lot that Eric, who is widely seen as being wrong in most legal issues he writes about (most famously Traveyon Martin case) is pummeling you here.

Quote:

---

1) Eric is making the impact that he wants to, even though he's vapid. All he does is restate the Dem arguments as they are presented in their pleadings.

---

And you are doing what exactly? Besides telling people Texas only "seeks clarification"? Talk about pot calling the kettle black

I don't have your vast knowledge of Pennsylvania election law, but at least Eric76 has read on it and tried to educate himself. All you've offered is "nuh-uh!!!l"

Quote:

---

2) You aren't paying very close attention.

BTW, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one.

---

Oh I knew you weren't a lawyer when I read your glass on this thread & your breakdown of the Trump EO on social media (which was laughable to put it politely)

ttu_85 said:

---

txaggie_08 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

EDHEC Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were "voting irregularities" in these states as a result of the above.

Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors.

---

Link

---

So what harm does the suit say Texas (the state or on behalf of the people?) suffered?

---

Quote:

---

By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens' vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution

---

It's right there in the article.

---

You forgot to bold it. !!.

What I would love to see out of all this is ELECTION TRANSPARENCY.

No closed system blackbox voting systems. Cant believe people are not raising hell about this. Sorry but you lawyers are way behind the curve on this. Its very dangerous and a threat to this republic. The entire election process must be transparent especially the software. Else nobody will buy the results in this polarized environment.

Also new laws to severely punish those that commit election fraud.

Maybe cases like this lead to critical reforms.

---

**** the software, there shouldn't be any software. We need to go back to paper ballots -- one ballot, one person, which can be recounted at will. Just as important as fairness is the APPEARANCE of fairness, and to do that, the entire system must be understandable by everyone.

Brad Heath is so desperate he is pinning his contact info on Twitter. How long until libs are arguing that SCOTUS needs to make a COVID exception in their interpretation of the constitution.

Two things from this thread:
-TX filing suit
-Everyone informing the esteemed doctor that he is on multiple Ignore Lists

AgBMF42 said:

---

Paxton looking for a pardon?

---

yukmonkey said:

---

Ken Paxton looking for a pardon?

---

Hmm

Louisiana just joined the suit!!

The wheels of justice grind slowly but they do grind.

I hope they grind up some dimtards

eric76 said:

---

I'm not looking forward to future elections when Democrat states file suit against Texas.

---

That would be an improvement on their behavior after the 2016 election when they conducted a fake Russian investigation for 4 years and tried to impeach a sitting President in an election year. No matter what lows they sink to, we know you'll blame Republicans for all of it.

Link?

Jayhawk said:

---

We are keeping the stars and stripes this time. Let them fly their hammer and sickle.

---

The two cant co-exist. Its got to be one of the other.

ttu_85 said:

---

Jayhawk said:

---

We are keeping the stars and stripes this time. Let them fly their hammer and sickle.

---

The two cant co-exist. Its got to be one of the other.

---

Same used to be said for genders. Ahhh a simpler time.