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.

---

I think they send it back to the State Legislatures to decide by a certain time and some or all of these State Leglislatures will be deadlocked on how to make the decision and wont have the intestinal fortitude to make the decision as they are on the ground in these cities where the rioting is likely to be occurring over the election so neither candidate will get to 270...Their political careers in these State Legislatures could be on the line...

Since neither candidate gets to 270, it gets tossed to the House of Representatives and State delegates to decide...In which case Trump probably wins.

Joseydog said:

---

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.

---

They may address it as urged by Ohio, but I think the ultimate ruling is that Texas (and the other states) lack standing.

---

Well yeah, but at this point I think SCOTUS has to weigh in one way or the other, all of this is entirely too damaging for the electoral process AND the judicial system. They either need to just decide F it let state legislatures give their electors to whoever they want to and let chips fall where they may or they need to shut all of this **** down right now with extreme prejudice and provide a 9-0 civics lesson decision that my 6th grader can understand. This is not the time be poosayfooting around taking easy ways out.

eric76 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

That's not going go happen

---

It should be more efficient if each of the four states determine the facts for their own state instead of having the US Supreme Court make determinations of fact for all states.

Am I correct that in a normal case that the Supreme Court hears, the facts were determined, often by a jury. And that the Supreme Court defers to the facts determined and deals with the legal issues?

Or should the Supreme Court ignore the facts to make their decision?

---

That's not how original jurisdiction works. One of the supreme courts inherent functions is settling legal disputes amongst state versus state

Texas needs to send 693 electorates to the convention and see what the democrats do.

Troutslime said:

---

Texas needs to send 693 electorates to the convention and see what the democrats do.

---

There won't be an democrats at that "convention" but either way congress is only going to count 38 as voting for Trump

Ramdiesel 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.

---

I think they send it back to the State Legislatures to decide by a certain time and some or all of these State Leglislatures will be deadlocked on how to make the decision and wont have the intestinal fortitude to make the decision as they are on the ground in these cities where the rioting is likely to be occurring over the election so neither candidate will get to 270...Their political careers in these State Legislatures could be on the line...

Since neither candidate gets to 270, it gets tossed to the House of Representatives and State delegates to decide...In which case Trump probably wins.

---

That takes us back to the question of electors. With 538 electors, it takes a majority of 270. If there are fewer because the Supreme Court decertifies a number of electors, then majority will be fewer. If the electors from Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan are removed, then the majority needed should be smaller and Bide would still have a majority of the electors who remain.

If, on the other hand, the electors for Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan remain as electors, but abstain from voting, then it likely would take 270 and throw it to to the House.

unmade bed said:

---

Joseydog said:

---

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.

---

They may address it as urged by Ohio, but I think the ultimate ruling is that Texas (and the other states) lack standing.

---

Well yeah, but at this point I think SCOTUS has to weigh in one way or the other, all of this is entirely to damaging for the electoral process AND the judicial system. They either need to just decide F it let state legislatures give their electors to whoever they want to and let chips fall where they may or they need to shut all of this **** down right now with extreme prejudice and provide a 9-0 civics lesson decision that my 6th grader can understand. This is not the time be poosayfooting around taking easy ways out.

---

I agree that SCOTUS will issue a full decision, but number one will be the lack of standing. And I will believe they will point out the ramifications of allowing these types of claims, including how the defendant States would be able to challenge Abbott's decisions in regards to our election and potentially overturn the Texas results.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

That's not going go happen

---

It should be more efficient if each of the four states determine the facts for their own state instead of having the US Supreme Court make determinations of fact for all states.

Am I correct that in a normal case that the Supreme Court hears, the facts were determined, often by a jury. And that the Supreme Court defers to the facts determined and deals with the legal issues?

Or should the Supreme Court ignore the facts to make their decision?

---

That's not how original jurisdiction works. One of the supreme courts inherent functions is settling legal disputes amongst state versus state

---

Yes. But that would leave them up (through a Master as was suggested earlier) to determine the facts.

Or do you think that the Supreme Court should assume whatever facts they choose for any reason to believe?

captkirk said:

---

---

Fredo is one Grade A sniveling, self-righteous, beta male.

His tripe is hard to listen to after four years of the Democrats doing everything they could to take out a dully elected president on false pretenses.

If we find ourselves in a Constitutional crisis, it's one of the Democrats own making.

HTownAg98 said:

---

---

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163470/20201210212807008_Motion%20for%20Leave%20to%20File%20Amici%20Curiae%20with%20Brief%20and%20Appx%20A%20attached.pdf

HTownAg98 said:

---

---

Well that's one way to do it. Not saying it's the right way, but it's one way

He apparently wants to do away with all voting that does not take place on election day.

I can't seem to cut and paste from the document. There is a paragraph on page 3 (page 8 of the pdf) beginning with "The Framers of the Constitution in 1787" that is interesting in which he claims that the framers of the Constitution expected all states to vote in the same manner to select their electors on election day.

"Congress certainly did not intend to open the floodgates to allow persons to vote in a manner that varied dramatically from one state to another, or where in person voters were treated disparately from mail-in voters." Correct me if I'm wrong, but were there far more differences than in how different states handled their selection of electors? Weren't some selected by elections and some by the state governments? If I'm not mistaken, in some states property owners could vote, including women, but not in others? I'd think that Congress was fine with leaving it up to the states to make the decision for themselves and countenanced far more differences than we have today.

He also appears to think that Act 77 was imposed by the governor rather than passed into law by the legislature and signed by the governor.

Is Lin Wong ?

eric76 said:

---

He apparently wants to do away with all voting that does not take place on election day.

---

This is the way. No mail in voting, with the exception for military, and maybe folks that are on gov disability.

Eric Swallows Well for president in 2024!

-Libs on texags

thirdcoast said:

---

Holy shyyytt.....I challenge anyone to find a more biased and slanted take than this former Solicitor Gen.

He starts off saying it's a "joke" and "garbage"...then goes on to admit 17 states see merit and urge the SCOTUS to take it. Never talks about actual claims in suit, and goes straight to attacking Ken Pax as looking for a pardon.

So desperate to sway public opinion..

---

This whole "looking for a pardon" is bull crap. Paxton was indicted in Collin County on state securities charges. The POTUS' pardon power doesn't extend to state crimes. This "former acting solicitor general" is a moron, a hack, or both.

state deep state

fooz said:

---

eric76 said:

---

He apparently wants to do away with all voting that does not take place on election day.

---

This is the way. No mail in voting, with the exception for military, and maybe folks that are on gov disability.

---

By his logic, there should be no exceptions of any kind at all.

Sarge 91 said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

Holy shyyytt.....I challenge anyone to find a more biased and slanted take than this former Solicitor Gen.

He starts off saying it's a "joke" and "garbage"...then goes on to admit 17 states see merit and urge the SCOTUS to take it. Never talks about actual claims in suit, and goes straight to attacking Ken Pax as looking for a pardon.

So desperate to sway public opinion..

---

This whole "looking for a pardon" is bull crap. Paxton was indicted in Collin County on state securities charges. The POTUS' pardon power doesn't extend to state crimes. This "former acting solicitor general" is a moron, a hack, or both.

---

he is currently under investigation by FBI. thats the pardon people are referring to.

will25u said:

---

---

If they are allowed to intervene (which I'm not sure on the standing issue) laches won't apply to them because they did file suits in most if not all of the defendant states trying to stop officials from changing and/or deviating from election laws. Courts turned them away because no harm had occurred before the election.

Quote:

---

Amistad Project lawyers tried to prevent this unlawful collusion by filing a flurry of lawsuits in eight states prior to Election Day. Unfortunately, judges were forced to put those lawsuits aside without consideration of their merits because the plaintiffs had not yet suffered "concrete harm" in the form of fraudulent election results. The law had no remedy to offer because the left's lawless schemes had not yet reached fruition.

---

Read the rest

More and more states keep jumping on the train...

How can SCOTUS ignore this at this point?

eric76 said:

---

He apparently wants to do away with all voting that does not take place on election day.

I can't seem to cut and paste from the document. There is a paragraph on page 3 (page 8 of the pdf) beginning with "The Framers of the Constitution in 1787" that is interesting in which he claims that the framers of the Constitution expected all states to vote in the same manner to select their electors on election day.

"Congress certainly did not intend to open the floodgates to allow persons to vote in a manner that varied dramatically from one state to another, or where in person voters were treated disparately from mail-in voters." Correct me if I'm wrong, but were there far more differences than in how different states handled their selection of electors? Weren't some selected by elections and some by the state governments? If I'm not mistaken, in some states property owners could vote, including women, but not in others? I'd think that Congress was fine with leaving it up to the states to make the decision for themselves and countenanced far more differences than we have today.

He also appears to think that Act 77 was imposed by the governor rather than passed into law by the legislature and signed by the governor.

---

Not to mention that he also misspelled his own name on his filing.

FireAg said:

---

Essentially, you have multiple states coming forward saying their voters have been disenfranchised by the actions of a few states, and these actions harm the voters of the plaintiff states...

SCOTUS needs to make some ruling one way or the other...you can't leave this out there...

I agree with hawg...this is how civil wars start...

---

And the Court has constitutionally and precedent based exit ramp under Article II Section One and the Twelfth Amendment. They are not "selecting" the President by using that process. I'd posit that it would work somewhat like this:

• Declare that the Article II Section One power to select the electors is a plenary one, exercisable before and after an election. Supremacy Clause dictates that legislatures out of session, must go back into session to perform their constitutional duties in defendant states
• Move the deadline for the EC vote back two weeks to 12-28 to give them time to do so

They can stop there and hope for the best but I'd wager there will be concurring opinions that go farther and state that if neither candidate has 270 after that process, then the Twelfth Amendment will be invoked-a contingent election.

on the starting a civil war, does that happen only if SCOTUS doesn't take the case or decides Texas doesn't have standing?

or does it still start a civil war if SCOTUS decides Texas has standing, but rules PA, GA, etc. win the case?

I'm ready to start an uncivil war, right nao!

if you won't let us disenfranchise 39,000,000 people in four states because we don't like the way that those states ran their elections, it's gonna be civil war!