Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Your libs should have thought about that before they unlawfully changed their laws before the election.

---

define unlawfully.

---

define "swallow".

BusterAg said:

---

Joseydog said:

---

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

---

My bet is that this is the most likely outcome. Not sure which way they will rule.

However, this is probably what Texas is really looking for. You need to be seeking relief, so they are looking for an injunction to force the vote to the legislature. That is hugely unlikely. But, if SCOTUS says that legislatures CAN meet and vote on electors, that is a win for conservatives, in my opinion.

---

I would think that the best thing SCOTUS could do is tell the states that their respective legislatures need to determine if any fraud occurred, and if they find evidence of fraud and/or broken laws within the state's election process, then they should use their constitutionally-granted legislative powers to appoint electors as they see fit, regardless of the vote...

SCOTUS may go further and advise that if a given state legislature is unable to find a way to assign its electors, then the states have an out and can assign no electors, neither candidate gets to 270, and then SCOTUS may rule that the 12th Amendment may be used (and has been used this way previously) to decide the election for the republic...

LOL, so CNN goes from ignoring it all together to "this is the worst time in American history." Geez, you would think they might have been letting the public know how we got here ever since Nov. 3. Nope, it just happened today.

titan said:

---

BusterAg 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.

---

My bet is that this is the most likely outcome. Not sure which way they will rule.

However, this is probably what Texas is really looking for. You need to be seeking relief, so they are looking for an injunction to force the vote to the legislature. That is hugely unlikely. But, if SCOTUS says that legislatures CAN meet and vote on electors, that is a win for conservatives, in my opinion.

---

They need to think long and hard on the Main Street view before going with some overly technical dodge like "don't have standing". That won't fly at all. Most see the SCOTUS something like Catholics do the Pope or a Council -- some kind of real position taking and say on the subject. A decision to not have a decision does not cut it.

It will be seen as a bought of gesture, and might even be, with all the talk about Roberts and his past flaky invented decisions.

They have original jurisdiction since from a state, so just use that and take a look at some of the more compelling indicators. Even if they don't overturn the election, ordering changes immediately that change the Georgia runoffs would help, and it would encourage trust of 2022.

---

You could explain it in other ways.

Lack of standing = it's none of Texas's business how PA runs their elections.

No, those are not the same thing. But they are somewhat similar, and dumbed down in a way people can understand.

FireAg said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Joseydog said:

---

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

---

My bet is that this is the most likely outcome. Not sure which way they will rule.

However, this is probably what Texas is really looking for. You need to be seeking relief, so they are looking for an injunction to force the vote to the legislature. That is hugely unlikely. But, if SCOTUS says that legislatures CAN meet and vote on electors, that is a win for conservatives, in my opinion.

---

I would think that the best thing SCOTUS could do is tell the states that their respective legislatures need to determine if any fraud occurred, and if they find evidence of fraud and/or broken laws within the state's election process, then they should use their constitutionally-granted legislative powers to appoint electors as they see fit, regardless of the vote...

SCOTUS may go further and advise that if a given state legislature is unable to find a way to assign its electors, then the states have an out and can assign no electors, neither candidate gets to 270, and then SCOTUS may rule that the 12th Amendment may be used (and has been used this way previously) to decide the election for the republic...

---

Yeah. That is the issue. The Governor of GA is saying that he can't call a special session of congress, because GA legislatures are bound by GA laws about selecting electors, and can't override the vote. They are bound by the election. Texas is saying they are not.

If SCOTUS says, well, actually, the right is plenary, then, now you get pressure on the governors to call a special session.

txag72 said:

---

LOL, so CNN goes from ignoring it all together to "this is the worst time in American history." Geez, you would think they might have been letting the public know how we got here ever since Nov. 3. Nope, it just happened today.

---

They really are epic criminals. Those louts more than any other are responsible for most of the "bad" of this year, and those before. Humpitperyear's suggestion on the TIME thread the award go to them collectively for being most culpable for the years events is very apt.

And what is so exasperating about them is they are UN-ELECTED and UN-ACCOUNTABLE, yet set essentially set policy. They even arguably tell the Democrats what to do, rather than are following them.

BusterAg said:

---

titan said:

---

BusterAg 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.

---

My bet is that this is the most likely outcome. Not sure which way they will rule.

However, this is probably what Texas is really looking for. You need to be seeking relief, so they are looking for an injunction to force the vote to the legislature. That is hugely unlikely. But, if SCOTUS says that legislatures CAN meet and vote on electors, that is a win for conservatives, in my opinion.

---

They need to think long and hard on the Main Street view before going with some overly technical dodge like "don't have standing". That won't fly at all. Most see the SCOTUS something like Catholics do the Pope or a Council -- some kind of real position taking and say on the subject. A decision to not have a decision does not cut it.

It will be seen as a bought of gesture, and might even be, with all the talk about Roberts and his past flaky invented decisions.

They have original jurisdiction since from a state, so just use that and take a look at some of the more compelling indicators. Even if they don't overturn the election, ordering changes immediately that change the Georgia runoffs would help, and it would encourage trust of 2022.

---

You could explain it in other ways.

Lack of standing = it's none of Texas's business how PA runs their elections.

No, those are not the same thing. But they are somewhat similar, and dumbed down in a way people can understand.

---

Still won't work.

Again, to Main Street, SCOTUS "invented" a way to keep Obamacare even though passed illegally, and "invented" a way to impose gay marriage.

People know the court "invents" things all the time. They are fully expected to innovate now, in this crisis.

But if the ineptitude of a state's (or states') election process(es) affects how ALL of the states are to be governed, then that ineptitude of one state disenfranchises other states by forcing all states to live and be governed by a leader who was not legally elected...

Or in other words, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Declining to hear a suit brought by close to half the states is sending a pretty clear message that the supreme court will never get involved in elections. It may or may not say that to lawyers, but it surely says that to laypeople, and laypeople are the ones in position to commit fraud. States have leeway to make election rules as loose as possible, by any means possible.

This gets way worse if we shift to a national popular vote, because then Democrat/Republican legislatures will want to maximize Democrat/Republican vote share from their states, so they'll have no motive to enforce their own laws (EDIT: it's actually worse, they have motive to selectively enforce their own laws, and the SC is teetering on the edge of saying that equal protection isn't a thing in elections) and the SC said that they won't do it either.

I am having a really hard time getting past the fact that we know there is motive for election fraud, and it seems to be pretty clear that by removing so many robust safeguards/narrow legal technicalities the opportunity exists.

Most on the left are saying that even with motive and opportunity people still won't commit this crime, but that doesn't really square with my conception of the world. Or also the fact that crime is a real thing, which also seems to be a fact they disagree with to some extent.

Tailgate88 said:

---

Citizens United filed an amicus just this morning. I thought the deadline was yesterday but they keep coming in...

---

The deadline for the four states to respond was yesterday.

There is no deadline for anyone seeking some pub out of this, or just wanting to have their voice on record. I bet there's going to be a lot more filings from random people and groups up through the ruling.

aggiehawg 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.

---

They do that, they start another civil war.

---

I think that the civil war talk is a little out of touch with reality.

However, depending on how this goes, I could absolutely see some states starting to call for a constitutional convention. There is no way you get to 38. But, if you even get to 20, it creates some real political pressure to start cleaning stuff up.

FireAg said:

---

But if the ineptitude of a state's (or states') election process(es) affects how ALL of the states are to be governed, then that ineptitude of one state disenfranchises other states by forcing all states to live and be governed by a leader who was not legally elected...

---

And worse, a leader whose party wants to fundamentally "change" the economic system, and more than a little evidence now suggests might even be a Manchurian candidate to the degree of how controlled and compromised.

Faustus said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

Citizens United filed an amicus just this morning. I thought the deadline was yesterday but they keep coming in...

---

The deadline for the four states to respond was yesterday.

There is no deadline for anyone seeking some pub out of this, or just wanting to have their voice on record. I bet there's going to be a lot more filings from random people and groups up through the ruling.

---

I'm sure we will get some good sovereign citizen filings as well. Those are always fun to read.

BusterAg said:

---

aggiehawg 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.

---

They do that, they start another civil war.

---

I think that the civil war talk is a little out of touch with reality.

However, depending on how this goes, I could absolutely see some states starting to call for a constitutional convention. There is no way you get to 38. But, if you even get to 20, it creates some real political pressure to start cleaning stuff up.

---

BINGO.

In fact, the 24 joined in this suit should go directly to a joint meeting designed to somewhat blunt or check anything silly from the Potomac if the Democrats steal the Senate.

You get 24 state governments to say, "Nah, we are not outlawing X, or instituting Y teachings" and D.C. has to back off, or find out the hard way if the military is more pro socialist than it is American.

BusterAg said:

---

FireAg said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Joseydog said:

---

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

---

My bet is that this is the most likely outcome. Not sure which way they will rule.

However, this is probably what Texas is really looking for. You need to be seeking relief, so they are looking for an injunction to force the vote to the legislature. That is hugely unlikely. But, if SCOTUS says that legislatures CAN meet and vote on electors, that is a win for conservatives, in my opinion.

---

I would think that the best thing SCOTUS could do is tell the states that their respective legislatures need to determine if any fraud occurred, and if they find evidence of fraud and/or broken laws within the state's election process, then they should use their constitutionally-granted legislative powers to appoint electors as they see fit, regardless of the vote...

SCOTUS may go further and advise that if a given state legislature is unable to find a way to assign its electors, then the states have an out and can assign no electors, neither candidate gets to 270, and then SCOTUS may rule that the 12th Amendment may be used (and has been used this way previously) to decide the election for the republic...

---

Yeah. That is the issue. The Governor of GA is saying that he can't call a special session of congress, because GA legislatures are bound by GA laws about selecting electors, and can't override the vote. They are bound by the election. Texas is saying they are not.

If SCOTUS says, well, actually, the right is plenary, then, now you get pressure on the governors to call a special session.

---

I agree...and I think SCOTUS will say that the constitution requires the states to get their legislatures involved and given the national nature of the question at hand, it overrides and concerns about "special session" particulars...

SCOTUS again could give them several options:

1. Legislature meets, reviews evidence, and decides if fraud occurred. If it did, on any level, they must throw out the state's popular vote and appoint their electors as the constitution gives state legislatures the power to do.

2. Legislature doesn't meet, and SCOTUS rules that's fine, but then they waive their right to appoint electors, and that state's electors will simply not be counted. No problem. The 12th Amendment cures this if a candidate doesn't get to 270.

3. Legislature meets, finds fraud evidence, but is not able to come to a consensus on how to appoint their electors. Again, no problem. The 12th Amendment cures this if a candidate doesn't get to 270.

SCOTUS doesn't pick the winner in any of these situations...the US Constitution does...

BusterAg said:

---

aggiehawg 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.

---

They do that, they start another civil war.

---

I think that the civil war talk is a little out of touch with reality.

However, depending on how this goes, I could absolutely see some states starting to call for a constitutional convention. There is no way you get to 38. But, if you even get to 20, it creates some real political pressure to start cleaning stuff up.

---

Need 34, and 15 have passed already. This is a possible very good outcome, indeed. I thought close to 20 had passed but maybe this site is a bit outdated (or I was wrong). Mark Levin has been pushing this for a while.

https://conventionofstates.com/states-that-have-passed-the-convention-of-states-article-v-application

titan said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

aggiehawg 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.

---

They do that, they start another civil war.

---

I think that the civil war talk is a little out of touch with reality.

However, depending on how this goes, I could absolutely see some states starting to call for a constitutional convention. There is no way you get to 38. But, if you even get to 20, it creates some real political pressure to start cleaning stuff up.

---

BINGO.

In fact, the 24 joined in this suit should go directly to a joint meeting designed to somewhat blunt or check anything silly from the Potomac if the Democrats steal the Senate.

You get 24 state governments to say, "Nah, we are not outlawing X, or instituting Y teachings" and D.C. has to back off, or find out the hard way if the military is more pro socialist than it is American.

---

That seems a lot more productive and realistic to me than talk of civil war.
The civil war threads are a lot more fun though.

So if the S.C. kicks it to the four, and the state legislatures decide the election results were correct and sends electors for Biden, do we get civil war? Just trying to figure out all the scenarios.

BBRex said:

---

So if the S.C. kicks it to the four, and the state legislatures decide the election results were correct and sends electors for Biden, do we get civil war? Just trying to figure out all the scenarios.

---

Not sure we can know that for sure, one way or the other...

It takes one person to fire one shot, at the right time, in the right circumstances, for things to spin out of control...

Lexington & Concord...

Fort Sumter...

That one shot can ignite a powder keg...

I'm not advocating FOR it...I'm merely saying that you can't rule it out, and thus the risk is there...

FireAg said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

FireAg said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Joseydog said:

---

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

---

My bet is that this is the most likely outcome. Not sure which way they will rule.

However, this is probably what Texas is really looking for. You need to be seeking relief, so they are looking for an injunction to force the vote to the legislature. That is hugely unlikely. But, if SCOTUS says that legislatures CAN meet and vote on electors, that is a win for conservatives, in my opinion.

---

I would think that the best thing SCOTUS could do is tell the states that their respective legislatures need to determine if any fraud occurred, and if they find evidence of fraud and/or broken laws within the state's election process, then they should use their constitutionally-granted legislative powers to appoint electors as they see fit, regardless of the vote...

SCOTUS may go further and advise that if a given state legislature is unable to find a way to assign its electors, then the states have an out and can assign no electors, neither candidate gets to 270, and then SCOTUS may rule that the 12th Amendment may be used (and has been used this way previously) to decide the election for the republic...

---

Yeah. That is the issue. The Governor of GA is saying that he can't call a special session of congress, because GA legislatures are bound by GA laws about selecting electors, and can't override the vote. They are bound by the election. Texas is saying they are not.

If SCOTUS says, well, actually, the right is plenary, then, now you get pressure on the governors to call a special session.

---

I agree...and I think SCOTUS will say that the constitution requires the states to get their legislatures involved and given the national nature of the question at hand, it overrides and concerns about "special session" particulars...

SCOTUS again could give them several options:

1. Legislature meets, reviews evidence, and decides if fraud occurred. If it did, on any level, they must throw out the state's popular vote and appoint their electors as the constitution gives state legislatures the power to do.

2. Legislature doesn't meet, and SCOTUS rules that's fine, but then they waive their right to appoint electors, and that state's electors will simply not be counted. No problem. The 12th Amendment cures this if a candidate doesn't get to 270.

3. Legislature meets, finds fraud evidence, but is not able to come to a consensus on how to appoint their electors. Again, no problem. The 12th Amendment cures this if a candidate doesn't get to 270.

SCOTUS doesn't pick the winner in any of these situations...the US Constitution does...

---

This makes a lot of sense to me, so I want to explore this rabbit hole. Particularly item 1.

So legislatures meet. What happens after that? They have a trial where evidence is presented to them and then take a vote if they believe fraud was committed. In PAs case the two majority leaders for the house already wrote an amicus supporting the Texas suit. They believe that their legislative power was violated.

Sarge 91 said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

Lorne Malvo said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

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!

---

Your libs should have thought about that before they unlawfully changed their laws before the election.

---

define unlawfully.

---

Entering a consent agreement between a Sec of State and a Plaintiff to alter timelines and ballot requirements, without the approval of the legislature.

---

The illegal actions are obvious and can not be denied. The legislature in the states affected should be impeaching the people and courts who perpetrated this corruption.

BBRex said:

---

So if the S.C. kicks it to the four, and the state legislatures decide the election results were correct and sends electors for Biden, do we get civil war? Just trying to figure out all the scenarios.

---

The state legislators in most of these states are GOP controlled. If they decide the election results are correct. I don't see how anyone on the GOP side could be upset with that.

BBRex said:

---

So if the S.C. kicks it to the four, and the state legislatures decide the election results were correct and sends electors for Biden, do we get civil war? Just trying to figure out all the scenarios.

---

Under that scenario, it would mean the Court sided with Texas and equal protection is still a right for which there is a remedy.

Several legislative bodies, or at least portions of them, in the states in question have, in fact, already held preliminary hearings...

BBRex said:

---

So if the S.C. kicks it to the four, and the state legislatures decide the election results were correct and sends electors for Biden, do we get civil war? Just trying to figure out all the scenarios.

---

IMO titan is right that the more likely outcome eventually is a mostly peaceful (in the literal sense, not the CNN Newspeak) balkanization. Potentially followed by some sort of economic union and mutual defense pact, making it a backdoor/less efficient federalism.

IMO America remaining one peaceful nation is the heavy favorite for the near future, but a 10% chance of balkanization and sub-5% chance of civil war. Things turn fast though, and it can be hard to see it coming.

RedHand said:

---

BBRex said:

---

So if the S.C. kicks it to the four, and the state legislatures decide the election results were correct and sends electors for Biden, do we get civil war? Just trying to figure out all the scenarios.

---

The state legislators in most of these states are GOP controlled. If they decide the election results are correct. I don't see how anyone on the GOP side could be upset with that.

---

The last 10 years (TEA parties, Trump) show how.

Republican voters aren't happy with the party at all, especially the elected officials from other states. How can you have faith in someone you never heard from a state you believe is corrupt and a party you don't trust?

queso1 said:

---

I understand that liberty is most important, but I'm not sure that people have contemplated what happen in a civil war. Absolute destruction of the economy. Netflix is gone.Saturday night beers and football are gone. The gluttonous amounts of food we "rely" on are gone. At least one lost generation from education.

Lastly, do you think the leftists are simply going to let this go? Have never studied history and learned what leftists will do to maintain power? They will u leash the full force of the US military upon the revolting states. The complicit world media will not cover the atrocities and will spin the rebels as evil racists, etc.

Are we really ready for this? Maybe people say so, but I don't think so.

At this point, the better solution is to keep electing conservative state and local government.

---

And there's no guarantee of the result. If you kick over the anthill, its not likely to be rebuilt the same.

FireAg said:

---

BBRex said:

---

So if the S.C. kicks it to the four, and the state legislatures decide the election results were correct and sends electors for Biden, do we get civil war? Just trying to figure out all the scenarios.

---

Not sure we can know that for sure, one way or the other...

It takes one person to fire one shot, at the right time, in the right circumstances, for things to spin out of control...

Lexington & Concord...

Fort Sumter...

That one shot can ignite a powder keg...

I'm not advocating FOR it...I'm merely saying that you can't rule it out, and thus the risk is there...

---

If the legislatures in a group end up affirming it, I think it will stick.

But you will get your Lexington moment if the Democrats don't muzzle people with power making open threats like Cynthia Johnson and AOC's call for `lists' or if the Democratic Party and media try to impose too much middle-class killing socialism let alone Marxism while they stay rich.

Those policies rate rebellion anyway, and in the wake of a perceived usurpation, a stolen election, it will be volatile.

If the Senate is not stolen, all this becomes less likely, because an enforced equilibrium will somewhat ensue. In fact, the balance gridlock could recreate 1994-2000 and nothing like an economic revival to temporarily heal deep rifts. Ideally, scandals showing suborned by China result in Pelosi, Schumer, and the "Schiff Squad" of impeachment being forced to resign over the next months and things just chug along with less ideologues in office and less radicals getting to agitate everywhere.

Apparently this just happened. I'm not listening so can't verify if its true or not.

You mean Wisconsin Executive branch from the context, correct?

Correct.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Actually of all the people I trust regarding the law on this, its is you and Hawg and you are on different sides. Just trying to figure it out but I am not a law guy. I'm a math and software guy and I know that end of things is FUBARed to hell.

---

BMX and I aren't on different sides, we just disagree on the way forward and how to get there. Neither of us know for sure what SCOTUS will or won't do. We both think they won't actually decide the election outcome. How they avoid doing that is the disagreement.

I think they use the constitutional exit ramp, even if they have to tap dance a bit on standing (such as they did in deciding Roe v. Wade) and he doesn't.

But since you are a math and software guy and as you said that end of the election is FUBARed, is there any doubt in your mind than the results of the election were manipulated?

---

No question, things were manipulated. The statistical aberrations and odd vote-counting shutdowns and the excuses given. But what should anyone expect with closed voting systems? That was a poison pill from the get-go. I think the question is, what degree was the manipulation. The question for the future how do we make elections TRANSPARENT. TRANSPARENCY solves a host of problems. This Country needs trust and validation in its institutions. That doesn't exist, and as long as that is the case, nothing but trouble awaits.

Its amazing you still have some trying to deny that portions of the election were rigged. All they can really bank on is the possibly more durable claim that it wasn't "enough" to overturn the result.