TX sues GA, MI, WI, and PA at Supreme Court

77,254 Views | 978 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Rebel Yell
Tailgate88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:21p, 12/10/20
AG
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
Reply Quote
4
titan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Tailgate88 • 12:24p, 12/10/20
S
Tailgate88 said:
fooz said:
#SeditiousSeventeen is trending on twitter. Bunch of babies.
Yeah that's it. Stealing an election, NOT seditious. Standing up for your rights, seditious.

My God, liberals are so delusional.
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.
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
Reply Quote
Anti-taxxer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Tailgate88 • 12:24p, 12/10/20
AG
Not exactly.

Their position is neutral. They just ask SCOTUS to define electors.
Reply Quote
Anti-taxxer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fooz • 12:26p, 12/10/20
AG
fooz said:
#SeditiousSeventeen is trending on twitter. Bunch of babies.

I would buy the shirt.
Reply Quote
3
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Tailgate88 • 12:28p, 12/10/20
AG
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
Actually, they are not. Read the title of their brief. Weird as hell since they are not in support of any party.
Reply Quote
2
Tailgate88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 12:36p, 12/10/20
AG
aggiehawg said:
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
Actually, they are not. Read the title of their brief. Weird as hell since they are not in support of any party.
My bad, just saw it and assumed...
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Tailgate88 • 12:39p, 12/10/20
AG
No problem. I missed the title too when I first clicked on it. Then went back and reread it in full.
Reply Quote
Sarge 91
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 12:44p, 12/10/20
AG
aggiehawg said:
That's better. I wanted to see these states actually put some skin in the game.
Reply Quote
2
nukeaggie2000
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:52p, 12/10/20
AG
Ohio plays for both sides - they want the Supreme Court to rule against state judges and executive changing the laws but they don't agree with Texas asking the Supreme Court do something about it. Ohio doesn't think Supreme Court has any authority to grant relief.
Reply Quote
2
pacecar02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to richardag • 12:53p, 12/10/20
richardag said:
AgBMF42 said:
Is Trump using this to take Cruz out of 2024? Embarrass Cruz here and blame him for the court loss?
That is one hell of a conspiracy theory, congratulations.
Pretty sure Cruz is on the record for not running more than 2 terms



and whoever said Rino was a Trump term, Rino preexisted Trump, may have started on Rush

sorry about this link

https://www.vox.com/2015/9/29/9416259/rino-word-history
Reply Quote
6
BigRobSA
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:53p, 12/10/20
Can we get SCotUS to not elect either Biden or Trump and go for a conservative instead?

Cruz or Paul would do nicely.
"The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution was never designed to restrain the people. It was designed to restrain the government."
Reply Quote
4
BusterAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:56p, 12/10/20
AG
Some quotes from the Ohio brief:
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.
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.
Interesting take. I like the federalism.

However, I tend to disagree. SCOTUS has told the states multiple times that their election method violates the equal protection clause, right? How is this any different?
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
ChemEAg08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BigRobSA • 12:59p, 12/10/20
AG
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.
Reply Quote
2
BigRobSA
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ChemEAg08 • 1:00p, 12/10/20
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.


Why not 2020?
"The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution was never designed to restrain the people. It was designed to restrain the government."
Reply Quote
1
titan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BigRobSA • 1:03p, 12/10/20
S
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.
You could wish.

Actually, at this point, wish they or the legislatures could simply declare Pence as POTUS. At least it would have the appearances of being in the running and selected by voters unlike your choice. Then whether the Senate is stolen or not would matter less because you have a strong firewall in retaining the WH. The next four years could be imposed balance of power.
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
Reply Quote
1
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:29p, 12/10/20
I could have sworn I remembered AZ already being mentioned, but if not...

Arizona has joined the conversation...

Reply Quote
3
MASAXET
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 1:36p, 12/10/20
AG
aggiehawg said:
You have to give the twitter poster points for accuracy in misspelling Louisiana in the same manner as the intervenors (i.e., "Lousiana")
Reply Quote
5
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:51p, 12/10/20


https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163367/20201210142206254_Pennsylvania%20Opp%20to%20Bill%20of%20Complaint%20v.FINAL.pdf
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Faustus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 1:54p, 12/10/20
Nice Faustian invitation reference PA.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
aggielostinETX
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 2:14p, 12/10/20
AG
That's a weak opening statement
Reply Quote
2
ChemEAg08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggielostinETX • 2:32p, 12/10/20
AG
Yeah, like typical liberals, attack the messenger. No statement about the main accusations. Only mention of any kind toward accusations is the 1 in a quadrillion. Weak.
Reply Quote
6
marvda1
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to rgag12 • 3:10p, 12/10/20
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?
That's none of Texas business, unless someone needs a pardon.
Reply Quote
3
RyanAg08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to marvda1 • 3:11p, 12/10/20
AG
marvda1 said:
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?
That's none of Texas business, unless someone needs a pardon.


MFBarnes that you?
Reply Quote
7
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:22p, 12/10/20
Reply Quote
8
1 edit
ChemEAg08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RyanAg08 • 3:23p, 12/10/20
AG
RyanAg08 said:
marvda1 said:
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?
That's none of Texas business, unless someone needs a pardon.


MFBarnes that you?


His account was created 2 days ago. So yes.
Reply Quote
4
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:27p, 12/10/20
Idaho joins the conversation. Hearing others as well. AK and another I believe. Will post when I see them.

Reply Quote
2
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:30p, 12/10/20
Reply Quote
12
BenFiasco14
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:32p, 12/10/20
AG
Dang I really don't want to get my hopes up but this is getting interesting
CNN is an enemy of the state and should be treated as such.
Reply Quote
16
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 3:41p, 12/10/20
AG
will25u said:
Even PA elected officials say Texas is right and their state sucks! LOL.

People are crawling out of the woodwork now. At this rate, SCOTUS may have to extend the 12-14 deadline just to get through all of these filings. (That's a joke...for the time being.)
Reply Quote
12
FireAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 3:46p, 12/10/20
AG
hawg...

Does this have legs?
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FireAg • 3:56p, 12/10/20
AG
FireAg said:
hawg...

Does this have legs?
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.

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.
Reply Quote
12
Line Ate Member
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FireAg • 3:59p, 12/10/20
AG
FireAg said:
hawg...

Does this have legs?
Not Hawg but...
Reply Quote
Some Junkie Cosmonaut
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to marvda1 • 4:02p, 12/10/20
AG
marvda1 said:
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?
That's none of Texas business, unless someone needs a pardon.


where are all these socks coming from?
Reply Quote
7
ChemEAg08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 4:07p, 12/10/20
AG
aggiehawg said:
FireAg said:
hawg...

Does this have legs?
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.

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.


Which would basically be a lose of our representative republic and the constitution would just be a piece of paper.

At least it's be grounds for Texit.
Reply Quote
2
SLAM
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 4:13p, 12/10/20
aggiehawg said:
FireAg said:
hawg...

Does this have legs?
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.

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.


By doing nothing they effectively say this is okay. I don't see how SCOTUS can't make a ruling here. The entire world is watching, sending it back down is not a wise idea at this point.
Reply Quote
2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.