Ulrich said:

---

I dislike Trump quite a bit.
I believe that the SC probably did what they view as the right thing.

However

There appears not to be any recourse when states intentionally violate their own constitutions resulting in insecure, untrustworthy elections. I'm forced to believe that there is a flaw in our constitution allowing this situation to arise, and I don't know how to fix it.

The voters have been disenfranchised in many states, and without consequences I don't see how we can keep these slipshod practices from spreading.

We have to find a way to restore federalism, institute election security in swing states, and hold the line on the electoral college.

---

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.

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Then what branch of government is going to hold officials responsible for transparency and holding fair elections?

the evidence is overwhelming that this election was rigged.

votes tampered with, procedures bot followed.

noone has been held accountable and the courts refuse to provide remedy.

WHEN IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVENTS...

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Ulrich said:

---

I dislike Trump quite a bit.
I believe that the SC probably did what they view as the right thing.

However

There appears not to be any recourse when states intentionally violate their own constitutions resulting in insecure, untrustworthy elections. I'm forced to believe that there is a flaw in our constitution allowing this situation to arise, and I don't know how to fix it.

The voters have been disenfranchised in many states, and without consequences I don't see how we can keep these slipshod practices from spreading.

We have to find a way to restore federalism, institute election security in swing states, and hold the line on the electoral college.

---

There is no legal avenue to get there. SCOTUS has ruled. !4th Amendment is null and void. Equal Protection under the Constitution has been ruled null and void. Forever,

POOF!

---

Im Gipper 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.

---

Civil war is on the clock!

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Then what branch of government is going to hold officials responsible for transparency and holding fair elections?

the evidence is overwhelming that this election was rigged.

votes tampered with, procedures bot followed.

noone has been held accountable and the courts refuse to provide remedy.

WHEN IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVENTS...

---

I imagine the Battle Hymn of the Republic playing in the background while you thought up this post

---

will25u said:

---

---

Diyala Nick said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Our republic ended today.

Equal protection and due process are no longer rights under the federal Constitution. They just overruled Marbury v. Madison.

ETA: A right without a remedy is not a right. There are no remedies before the election and there are no remedies after the election. Thus equal protection is not a right anymore. And the 14th Amendment is moot and discarded.

---

Oh dont be so melodramatic.

This was a bogus lawsuit that was a last ditch coup attempt. Texas's solicitor general wouldnt put his name on this anti democracy filth.

SCOTUS isn't there to be a political tool to decide elections.

---

So a right without a remedy somehow stays a right? Explain how under that law that works? I'll await your Masters Degree in Law wisdom.

---

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm also not a doctor. That said, when courts at virtually every level of government and across multiple states reject the merits of an argument presented by a plantiff(s) to the degree that the plantiff(s) is something like 1-60 in those court cases, I feel comfortable (as a non lawyer) in arriving at the conclusion that the plantiff(s) arguments are pure nonsense. Which is really no different than how I feel about the anti-vax MD who, in spite of all evidence and the concensus of his professional community, proclaims vaccines to be a public health threat. In that case too, as someone who is not a doctor, I'm comfortable saying that the rogue anti-vax MD is spouting absolute nonsense.

As a layperson, it is obvious that both are completely full of sh*t.

---

Quote:

---

Whilst men are linked together, they easily and speedily communicate the alarm of any evil design. They are enabled to fathom it with common counsel, and to oppose it with united strength. Whereas, when they lie dispersed, without concert, order, or discipline, communication is uncertain, counsel difficult, and resistance impracticable. Where men are not acquainted with each other's principles, nor experienced in each other's talents, nor at all practised in their mutual habitudes and dispositions by joint efforts in business; no personal confidence, no friendship, no common interest, subsisting among them; it is evidently impossible that they can act a public part with uniformity, perseverance, or efficacy. In a connection, the most inconsiderable man, by adding to the weight of the whole, has his value, and his use; out of it, the greatest talents are wholly unserviceable to the public. No man, who is not inflamed by vain-glory into enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported, desultory, unsystematic endeavours, are of power to defeat the subtle designs and united cabals of ambitious citizens. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

---

thirdcoast said:

---

Diyala Nick said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Our republic ended today.

Equal protection and due process are no longer rights under the federal Constitution. They just overruled Marbury v. Madison.

ETA: A right without a remedy is not a right. There are no remedies before the election and there are no remedies after the election. Thus equal protection is not a right anymore. And the 14th Amendment is moot and discarded.

---

Oh dont be so melodramatic.

This was a bogus lawsuit that was a last ditch coup attempt. Texas's solicitor general wouldnt put his name on this anti democracy filth.

SCOTUS isn't there to be a political tool to decide elections.

---

So a right without a remedy somehow stays a right? Explain how under that law that works? I'll await your Masters Degree in Law wisdom.

---

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm also not a doctor. That said, when courts at virtually every level of government and across multiple states reject the merits of an argument presented by a plantiff(s) to the degree that the plantiff(s) is something like 1-60 in those court cases, I feel comfortable (as a non lawyer) in arriving at the conclusion that the plantiff(s) arguments are pure nonsense. Which is really no different than how I feel about the anti-vax MD who, in spite of all evidence and the concensus of his professional community, proclaims vaccines to be a public health threat. In that case too, as someone who is not a doctor, I'm comfortable saying that the rogue anti-vax MD is spouting absolute nonsense.

As a layperson, it is obvious that both are completely full of sh*t.

---

There was an overwhelming scientific consensus against Einstein's theory of relativity.

" "Genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops. Stop nodding your head." - Einstein

---

thirdcoast said:

---

There was an overwhelming scientific consensus against Einstein's theory of relativity.

" "Genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops. Stop nodding your head." - Einstein

---

John Maplethorpe said:

---

Donald skipped the Christmas party tonight. Might be in a bad mood.

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

Diyala Nick said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Our republic ended today.

Equal protection and due process are no longer rights under the federal Constitution. They just overruled Marbury v. Madison.

ETA: A right without a remedy is not a right. There are no remedies before the election and there are no remedies after the election. Thus equal protection is not a right anymore. And the 14th Amendment is moot and discarded.

---

Oh dont be so melodramatic.

This was a bogus lawsuit that was a last ditch coup attempt. Texas's solicitor general wouldnt put his name on this anti democracy filth.

SCOTUS isn't there to be a political tool to decide elections.

---

So a right without a remedy somehow stays a right? Explain how under that law that works? I'll await your Masters Degree in Law wisdom.

---

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm also not a doctor. That said, when courts at virtually every level of government and across multiple states reject the merits of an argument presented by a plantiff(s) to the degree that the plantiff(s) is something like 1-60 in those court cases, I feel comfortable (as a non lawyer) in arriving at the conclusion that the plantiff(s) arguments are pure nonsense. Which is really no different than how I feel about the anti-vax MD who, in spite of all evidence and the concensus of his professional community, proclaims vaccines to be a public health threat. In that case too, as someone who is not a doctor, I'm comfortable saying that the rogue anti-vax MD is spouting absolute nonsense.

As a layperson, it is obvious that both are completely full of sh*t.

---

There was an overwhelming scientific consensus against Einstein's theory of relativity.

" "Genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops. Stop nodding your head." - Einstein

---

Ah yes, comparing changes to fundamental laws of physics to a couple of dip**** half-wits making a Hail Mary attempt at subverting the will of the people. That'll probably have more standing than these cases.

---

John Maplethorpe said:

---

Have you considered it's Newsmax and Gateway Pundit that are lying to you and the rest of us living in reality knew this SC decision was inevitable?

---

John Maplethorpe said:

---

Have you considered it's Newsmax and Gateway Pundit that are lying to you and the rest of us living in reality knew this SC decision was inevitable?

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

You're pathetic attempt to troll is pathetic.

Trump didn't lose, the American People did. And it wasn't accomplished by a fair election, it was done by blatant fraud and by censorship/false information provided by big tech and MSM.

You should be embarrassed by your inability to admit this of course, but those who have no shame feel no shame so no surprise there I guess. Trolls don't troll because they have dignity, they do it because a lack thereof.

Have a good day.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Ulrich said:

---

I dislike Trump quite a bit.
I believe that the SC probably did what they view as the right thing.

However

There appears not to be any recourse when states intentionally violate their own constitutions resulting in insecure, untrustworthy elections. I'm forced to believe that there is a flaw in our constitution allowing this situation to arise, and I don't know how to fix it.

The voters have been disenfranchised in many states, and without consequences I don't see how we can keep these slipshod practices from spreading.

We have to find a way to restore federalism, institute election security in swing states, and hold the line on the electoral college.

---

There is no legal avenue to get there. SCOTUS has ruled. !4th Amendment is null and void. Equal Protection under the Constitution has been ruled null and void. Forever,

POOF!

---

CondensedFoggyAggie said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

You're pathetic attempt to troll is pathetic.

Trump didn't lose, the American People did. And it wasn't accomplished by a fair election, it was done by blatant fraud and by censorship/false information provided by big tech and MSM.

You should be embarrassed by your inability to admit this of course, but those who have no shame feel no shame so no surprise there I guess. Trolls don't troll because they have dignity, they do it because a lack thereof.

Have a good day.

---

I have no idea why you think you know better than the hundreds of judges across 10+ states, who pretty much unanimously declared all the election fraud evidence to be false.

Democracy won. The Republic won. The Constitution won. Liberty, freedom, and justice won. The separations of powers won.

The American people won, even Trump voters.

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Im Gipper 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.

---

Civil war is on the clock!

---

Are the uniforms at least not going to be that hot itchy wool crap like last time? Maybe Dri Fit? And who's footing the bill for traveling to and from squirmishes?

---