Do what McConnell did with `Cocaine Mitch' and make a badge out of it. Change to Socialism directed by China is worth being seditious to.Tailgate88 said:Yeah that's it. Stealing an election, NOT seditious. Standing up for your rights, seditious.fooz said:
#SeditiousSeventeen is trending on twitter. Bunch of babies.
My God, liberals are so delusional.
fooz said:
#SeditiousSeventeen is trending on twitter. Bunch of babies.
Actually, they are not. Read the title of their brief. Weird as hell since they are not in support of any party.Tailgate88 said:
Did we know Ohio is in? Because they're in.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163346/20201210125506698_TX%20v%20PA%20-%20Amicus.PDF
My bad, just saw it and assumed...aggiehawg said:Actually, they are not. Read the title of their brief. Weird as hell since they are not in support of any party.Tailgate88 said:
Did we know Ohio is in? Because they're in.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163346/20201210125506698_TX%20v%20PA%20-%20Amicus.PDF
Pretty sure Cruz is on the record for not running more than 2 termsrichardag said:That is one hell of a conspiracy theory, congratulations.AgBMF42 said:
Is Trump using this to take Cruz out of 2024? Embarrass Cruz here and blame him for the court loss?
Quote:
Article II of the Constitution directs that "[e]ach State shall appoint" presidential electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." Art. II, 1, cl.2. Whatever "the Legislature thereof" means, it does not mean "the courts thereof." Thus, when state election codes dictate the manner for appointing presidential electors, state courts must respect the legislature's work: they may not change the rules by which electors are chosen through judge-made doctrines or by rewriting statutes in the guise of interpretation.
Quote:
Precisely because Ohio holds this view about the meaning of the Electors Clause, it cannot support Texas's plea for relief. Texas seeks a "remand to the State legislatures to allocate electors in a manner consistent with the Constitution."... Such an order would violate, not honor, the Electors Clause. Federal courts, just like state courts, lack authority to change the legislatively chosen method for appointing presidential electors. And so federal courts, just like state courts, lack authority to order legislatures to appoint electors without regard to the results of an already-completed election.
Quote:
The courts have no more business ordering the People's representatives how to choose electors than they do ordering the People themselves how to choose their dinners.
Interesting take. I like the federalism.Quote:
It may prove difficult at this late date to fashion a remedy that does not create equal or greater harms. But there will be an election in 2024, another four years after that, and so on. If only to prevent the doubts that have tainted this election from arising again in some future election, the Court should decide, as soon as possible, the extent of the power that the Electors Clause confers on state legislatures and withholds from other actors.
BigRobSA said:
Can we get SCotUS to not elect either Biden or Trump and go for a conservative instead?
Cruz or Paul would do nicely.
ChemEAg08 said:BigRobSA said:
Can we get SCotUS to not elect either Biden or Trump and go for a conservative instead?
Cruz or Paul would do nicely.
If Cruz does argue the case and win, that'd be a hell of a feather in his cap for 2024.
You could wish.BigRobSA said:
Can we get SCotUS to not elect either Biden or Trump and go for a conservative instead?
Cruz or Paul would do nicely.
marvda1 said:That's none of Texas business, unless someone needs a pardon.rgag12 said:marvda1 said:
Why don't we just do away with our form of government and just anoint Trump king. I am Bill Gates long lost son and I am owed the money. I will stand by that until I get it.
How about we don't unconstitutionally change election rules last minute, and let an avalanche of dubious and illegal mail-in ballots flood the system?
RyanAg08 said:marvda1 said:That's none of Texas business, unless someone needs a pardon.rgag12 said:marvda1 said:
Why don't we just do away with our form of government and just anoint Trump king. I am Bill Gates long lost son and I am owed the money. I will stand by that until I get it.
How about we don't unconstitutionally change election rules last minute, and let an avalanche of dubious and illegal mail-in ballots flood the system?
MFBarnes that you?
Hell if I know. But with all of these filings from all over the country, the pressure on SCOTUS to at least try to resolve something, anything, instead of tossing it out is tremendous. They have to be looking for an exit ramp. The combination of Article II Section One Clause 2 and the Twelfth Amendment is sitting there and there is precedent.FireAg said:
hawg...
Does this have legs?
Not Hawg but...FireAg said:
hawg...
Does this have legs?
marvda1 said:That's none of Texas business, unless someone needs a pardon.rgag12 said:marvda1 said:
Why don't we just do away with our form of government and just anoint Trump king. I am Bill Gates long lost son and I am owed the money. I will stand by that until I get it.
How about we don't unconstitutionally change election rules last minute, and let an avalanche of dubious and illegal mail-in ballots flood the system?
aggiehawg said:Hell if I know. But with all of these filings from all over the country, the pressure on SCOTUS to at least try to resolve something, anything, instead of tossing it out is tremendous. They have to be looking for an exit ramp. The combination of Article II Section One Clause 2 and the Twelfth Amendment is sitting there and there is precedent.FireAg said:
hawg...
Does this have legs?
Throw it back to the state legislatures in the defendant states and hope for the best would be my inclination were I on the Court.
aggiehawg said:Hell if I know. But with all of these filings from all over the country, the pressure on SCOTUS to at least try to resolve something, anything, instead of tossing it out is tremendous. They have to be looking for an exit ramp. The combination of Article II Section One Clause 2 and the Twelfth Amendment is sitting there and there is precedent.FireAg said:
hawg...
Does this have legs?
Throw it back to the state legislatures in the defendant states and hope for the best would be my inclination were I on the Court.
