will25u said:

---

---

ruddyduck 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.

---

where are all these socks coming from?

---

pacecar02 said:

---

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

---

BusterAg said:

---

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?

---

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.

---

SLAM said:

---

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.

---

ruddyduck 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.

---

where are all these socks coming from?

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

First, Texas cannot establish it suffered an injury in fact. An injury in fact requires a plaintiff to show the "invasion of a legally protected interest"; that the injury is both "concrete and particularized"; and that the injury is "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016). According to Texas, the alleged violations of Pennsylvania's Election Code undermined the authority granted to the Pennsylvania General Assembly under the Electors Clause.8 Motion at 3, 10-11, 13-15. But as the text of the Electors Clause itself makes clear, the injury caused by the alleged usurpation of the General Assembly's constitutional authority belongs to that institution. AIRC, 576 U.S. at 800 (legislature claimed that it was stripped of its responsibility for redistricting vested in it by the Elections Clause). The State of Texas is not the Pennsylvania General Assembly. See Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, __ U.S. __, 139 S.Ct. 1945, 1953 (2019) (noting the "mismatch between the body seeking to litigate [the Virginia House of Delegates] and the body to which the relevant constitutional provision allegedly assigned exclusive redistricting authority [the General Assembly]").

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Old Ag 74 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Old Ag 74 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Old Ag 74 said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

This idk if there is even a point in engaging in this discussion. I'm obviously not going to change your mind and I can't speak for you on how it will be good for you.

But I wanted Trump to be out of office and never heard from again, to get covid under control and get back to normal, an administration that cares about science and investing in the future, a president who listens to his advisors and doesnt make horribly rash decisions, a president who doesn't appoint unqualified dip****s to cabinet positions based on nepotism, continued efforts to improve our healthcare system, restarting efforts to combat climate change and invest in clean energy, fix our economy and tax system so it's not just benefitting the wealthy and corporations, rehabilitate our relationships with our allies and reaffirm our commitment to the international community, stop kissing the asses of evil dictators, and to have a president who is a decent and kind person who genuinely cares about America and others, and wants to heal us.

However, ignore all of that. Even if none of the stuff above mattered, every single thing Trump has done since the election, to fight democracy, ignore the will of the people, prioritize himself over the country, and break centuries of tradition of peaceful transition of power all for his own disgusting selfish pride... that alone is reason enough to vote against Trump.

---

LOL - the great healer and uniter Biden telling a factory worker your full of sh**

---

Oh, is this where we start posting negative videos of either Biden or Trump saying either dumb and/or mean things? At this point, people are only posting things that are more likely to make themselves feel better rather than change anyone's mind. Its just F16 political ping pong (or badminton...if you're into shuttlecocks)

---

Show me a video where Trump tells a fellow American they are full of Sh**.

---

You're right, I don't have one of Trump saying those words verbatim. However, I can post a long list of quotes of Trump making disparaging comments about other Americans, include veterans. However, its a long list, so which category would you like: People he loved, hired, then fired? Women? Republicans? Democrats? Disabled?

---

I think you missed the whole point of my original post, I was responding to the asinine assertion that with Biden, we will have "a president who is a decent and kind person who genuinely cares about America and others, and want to heal us." The truth is, the entire Biden clan is a bunch dysfunctional perverts who have gotten rich by selling out to foreign interests at the expense of America. To try to portray him as "Saint Joe" is a complete joke.

---

And my post called out both Biden and Trump. I'm not a Biden fan, but calling him a pervert

• https://nationalfile.com/full-release-ashley-biden-diary-reveals-child-sex-trauma-drug-abuse-resentment-for-joe-whistleblower/
• Has anyone, especially in the Biden family denied this or threatened a lawsuit?

while holding Trump on a pedestal is a bit disingenuous. Sure I'm worried about Biden, but I think it will also be interesting to see if Trump, once out of office, acts in a way that continues to validate (or not) how people perceive him and his caring of America and other people.

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

thats a standing issue I think Texas will have trouble getting around. From the PA brief:

Quote:

---

First, Texas cannot establish it suffered an injury in fact. An injury in fact requires a plaintiff to show the "invasion of a legally protected interest"; that the injury is both "concrete and particularized"; and that the injury is "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016). According to Texas, the alleged violations of Pennsylvania's Election Code undermined the authority granted to the Pennsylvania General Assembly under the Electors Clause.8 Motion at 3, 10-11, 13-15. But as the text of the Electors Clause itself makes clear, the injury caused by the alleged usurpation of the General Assembly's constitutional authority belongs to that institution. AIRC, 576 U.S. at 800 (legislature claimed that it was stripped of its responsibility for redistricting vested in it by the Elections Clause). The State of Texas is not the Pennsylvania General Assembly. See Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, __ U.S. __, 139 S.Ct. 1945, 1953 (2019) (noting the "mismatch between the body seeking to litigate [the Virginia House of Delegates] and the body to which the relevant constitutional provision allegedly assigned exclusive redistricting authority [the General Assembly]").

---

---

Sarge 91 said:

---

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.

---

That is what is frustrating. The Constitution already affords the State legislatures the power to appoint electors "in a manner of their choosing." They could pass resolutions ignoring the tainted vote totals and appointing their own electors. The political blowback would be amazing, so maybe this is an attempt to get SCOTUS to give the states the political cover to take this action.

---

thirdcoast said:

---

GOP counties in swing states need to cheat in 2024 if SCOTUS sets precedent in allowing cheating.

---

eric76 said:

---

SLAM said:

---

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.

---

Do you want them to make a ruling with the facts completely in dispute? Or do you want them to sort out the facts first and then consider the law?

---

will25u said:

---

Do the legislators that filed amicus today for PA change that any?

---

SLAM said:

---

eric76 said:

---

SLAM said:

---

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.

---

Do you want them to make a ruling with the facts completely in dispute? Or do you want them to sort out the facts first and then consider the law?

---

I want them to take the case and make a ruling. I don't want them to send it back down.

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

That's not going go happen

---

MASAXET said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

thats a standing issue I think Texas will have trouble getting around. From the PA brief:

Quote:

---

First, Texas cannot establish it suffered an injury in fact. An injury in fact requires a plaintiff to show the "invasion of a legally protected interest"; that the injury is both "concrete and particularized"; and that the injury is "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016). According to Texas, the alleged violations of Pennsylvania's Election Code undermined the authority granted to the Pennsylvania General Assembly under the Electors Clause.8 Motion at 3, 10-11, 13-15. But as the text of the Electors Clause itself makes clear, the injury caused by the alleged usurpation of the General Assembly's constitutional authority belongs to that institution. AIRC, 576 U.S. at 800 (legislature claimed that it was stripped of its responsibility for redistricting vested in it by the Elections Clause). The State of Texas is not the Pennsylvania General Assembly. See Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, __ U.S. __, 139 S.Ct. 1945, 1953 (2019) (noting the "mismatch between the body seeking to litigate [the Virginia House of Delegates] and the body to which the relevant constitutional provision allegedly assigned exclusive redistricting authority [the General Assembly]").

---

---

I agree. But when that point has been raised here in the past it was laughed off the stage. We'll see who is right if the court actually addresses it in the denial

---

will25u said:

---

---

Joseydog said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

thats a standing issue I think Texas will have trouble getting around. From the PA brief:

Quote:

---

First, Texas cannot establish it suffered an injury in fact. An injury in fact requires a plaintiff to show the "invasion of a legally protected interest"; that the injury is both "concrete and particularized"; and that the injury is "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016). According to Texas, the alleged violations of Pennsylvania's Election Code undermined the authority granted to the Pennsylvania General Assembly under the Electors Clause.8 Motion at 3, 10-11, 13-15. But as the text of the Electors Clause itself makes clear, the injury caused by the alleged usurpation of the General Assembly's constitutional authority belongs to that institution. AIRC, 576 U.S. at 800 (legislature claimed that it was stripped of its responsibility for redistricting vested in it by the Elections Clause). The State of Texas is not the Pennsylvania General Assembly. See Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, __ U.S. __, 139 S.Ct. 1945, 1953 (2019) (noting the "mismatch between the body seeking to litigate [the Virginia House of Delegates] and the body to which the relevant constitutional provision allegedly assigned exclusive redistricting authority [the General Assembly]").

---

---

I agree. But when that point has been raised here in the past it was laughed off the stage. We'll see who is right if the court actually addresses it in the denial

---

I think SCOTUS will dispose of this case on standing. I would not be shocked if all Justices agree that Texas does not have standing.

---

BusterAg said:

---

Joseydog said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

thats a standing issue I think Texas will have trouble getting around. From the PA brief:

Quote:

---

First, Texas cannot establish it suffered an injury in fact. An injury in fact requires a plaintiff to show the "invasion of a legally protected interest"; that the injury is both "concrete and particularized"; and that the injury is "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016). According to Texas, the alleged violations of Pennsylvania's Election Code undermined the authority granted to the Pennsylvania General Assembly under the Electors Clause.8 Motion at 3, 10-11, 13-15. But as the text of the Electors Clause itself makes clear, the injury caused by the alleged usurpation of the General Assembly's constitutional authority belongs to that institution. AIRC, 576 U.S. at 800 (legislature claimed that it was stripped of its responsibility for redistricting vested in it by the Elections Clause). The State of Texas is not the Pennsylvania General Assembly. See Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, __ U.S. __, 139 S.Ct. 1945, 1953 (2019) (noting the "mismatch between the body seeking to litigate [the Virginia House of Delegates] and the body to which the relevant constitutional provision allegedly assigned exclusive redistricting authority [the General Assembly]").

---

---

I agree. But when that point has been raised here in the past it was laughed off the stage. We'll see who is right if the court actually addresses it in the denial

---

I think SCOTUS will dispose of this case on standing. I would not be shocked if all Justices agree that Texas does not have standing.

---

At this point, I would be really surprised if SCOTUS didn't address the Article 1, section 2 issues. But, you never know.

---

Joseydog said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

thats a standing issue I think Texas will have trouble getting around. From the PA brief:

Quote:

---

First, Texas cannot establish it suffered an injury in fact. An injury in fact requires a plaintiff to show the "invasion of a legally protected interest"; that the injury is both "concrete and particularized"; and that the injury is "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016). According to Texas, the alleged violations of Pennsylvania's Election Code undermined the authority granted to the Pennsylvania General Assembly under the Electors Clause.8 Motion at 3, 10-11, 13-15. But as the text of the Electors Clause itself makes clear, the injury caused by the alleged usurpation of the General Assembly's constitutional authority belongs to that institution. AIRC, 576 U.S. at 800 (legislature claimed that it was stripped of its responsibility for redistricting vested in it by the Elections Clause). The State of Texas is not the Pennsylvania General Assembly. See Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, __ U.S. __, 139 S.Ct. 1945, 1953 (2019) (noting the "mismatch between the body seeking to litigate [the Virginia House of Delegates] and the body to which the relevant constitutional provision allegedly assigned exclusive redistricting authority [the General Assembly]").

---

---

I agree. But when that point has been raised here in the past it was laughed off the stage. We'll see who is right if the court actually addresses it in the denial

---

I think SCOTUS will dispose of this case on standing. I would not be shocked if all Justices agree that Texas does not have standing.

---

MASAXET said:

---

Joseydog said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

thats a standing issue I think Texas will have trouble getting around. From the PA brief:

Quote:

---

First, Texas cannot establish it suffered an injury in fact. An injury in fact requires a plaintiff to show the "invasion of a legally protected interest"; that the injury is both "concrete and particularized"; and that the injury is "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016). According to Texas, the alleged violations of Pennsylvania's Election Code undermined the authority granted to the Pennsylvania General Assembly under the Electors Clause.8 Motion at 3, 10-11, 13-15. But as the text of the Electors Clause itself makes clear, the injury caused by the alleged usurpation of the General Assembly's constitutional authority belongs to that institution. AIRC, 576 U.S. at 800 (legislature claimed that it was stripped of its responsibility for redistricting vested in it by the Elections Clause). The State of Texas is not the Pennsylvania General Assembly. See Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, __ U.S. __, 139 S.Ct. 1945, 1953 (2019) (noting the "mismatch between the body seeking to litigate [the Virginia House of Delegates] and the body to which the relevant constitutional provision allegedly assigned exclusive redistricting authority [the General Assembly]").

---

---

I agree. But when that point has been raised here in the past it was laughed off the stage. We'll see who is right if the court actually addresses it in the denial

---

I think SCOTUS will dispose of this case on standing. I would not be shocked if all Justices agree that Texas does not have standing.

---

If they dip into any analysis, as opposed to a one line denial, I agree this is low hanging fruit

---