Don't Mess With Tejas - Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
Texas sues for alleged violation of the Electors Clause of the Constitution - as relief wants SCOTUS to order those states to have their legislatures choose their EC electors.
Don't know if it will fly but I give them a "Yee Haw" for effort. Every time you think 2020 has gotten as out there as is remotely possible it seems crank things up a notch further...
From the filing:
Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.
story on Breitbart
Interesting times...
Comments
I just spent
5 minutes reading the comments on that post, flagging everyone that threatened death to other people. This is getting out of hand and these people are getting out of control.
I'm so amazed by the people that think Trump is their man. He wouldn't spend 5 minutes with them unless there's was some "benefit" to Trump for it, otherwise he wouldn't give a shit.
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
Classic Sentence, RR
.
Any ideas about how to put "This" back in hand, and "these people" back under control?
I see the propaganda is working perfectly and we get closer and closer to civil war. People on Breitbart talking like stormtroopers? The hell you say!
.
Turning to the quoted language from the Texas law suit -- all the MSM and all the geniuses on the internet are chortling about how Trump and his shitty lawyers can't prove fraud. Suckers. The real strategy has been obvious to anybody who ignores the escalating torrent of bullshit coming from the MSM -- the GOP controlled State Legislatures have the Constitutional authority to assign whoever the fuck they want as Electors. This is far MORE dangerous than all this diversionary crap about "fraud."
More dangerous because it is a legitimate POLITCAL strategy under the Constitution, and it has nothing to do with the bizarre term, "fraud." The argument is that the mail in ballots could have been legitimately ordered by State Legislatures, but weren't. They are therefore unconstitutional.
Whether this actually led to any "fraud" is beside the point.
I doubt that the necessary three legislatures will actually take this step. That is the logic behind this peculiar Texas suit -- instead of asking the various state governments to act on their own, it asks the Supreme Court to decide it for them. Good old Barack Obama made sure that the GOP would control the Court for at least another five years . . . .
But I doubt the Court will do that.
.
What has my panties in a bunch is the coordinated way that the reality of the Trump effort is actively suppressed in favor of this silly assed TRIUMPHANT bleating in headlines about how bogus are these "fraud" accusations -- about half a dozen such Straw Man Destroying threads decorate the front page of this board.
My doubts about this Trump effort actually working aside, if three of the five states do make a Legislative finding that their respective Supreme Courts had violated the US Constitution (which they did) by altering election law, we will have the Constitutional Crisis from hell. The millions of idiots who believe MSNBC and legacy media will be SHOCKED while the idiots who believe Fox News and Breitbart will be ecstatic.
And blood will be shed, and martial law will be the next step.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
Today is the deadline.
State legislatures can only repeal laws predating the election and pass new laws stripping the voters of their popular vote selection of electors up to 6 days before the electors meet on December 14th. Arizona and Michigan won't vote today. Their legislatures are on Covid lockdown because of their "hearings" with Rudy Giuliani. Wisconsin's legislature has already said they won't do it.
Also, shut the fuck up. Stop making veiled nasty comments about me before I complain to site admins about your personal attacks.
Am I right in my recollection that you are a lawyer?
If I am, could you please explain for us legally uninformed folks how does Texas have standing to sue other states about those other states' own election laws? I don't see how Texas could argue that it has in any way been harmed by non-Texan voters and other state election procedures. I don't see Texas suing Oregon where all voters received mail in ballots and, I believe, no one went to the polls, except perhaps to drop off ballots.
Maybe, probably, I am confused, but is not a constitutional challenge filed in Federal court? And, does not a suit, filed in civil court, I think, allege some form of personal or financial damage? Please explain.
Mary Bennett
nyt has a good explanation
earch in google and it will come up
\https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/12/08/us/joe-biden-donald-trump
Stop Climate Change Silence - Start the Conversation
Hot Air Website, Twitter, Facebook
I'm a computer nerd, but I've done paralegal work.
I did paralegal work for a criminal defense attorney who practices law at the US Appeals and Supreme Court level. But I'm not a lawyer, just a computer nerd of 45 years and a small business owner.
The Supreme Court hears two types of cases: Appeals from lower courts and original cases that involve ambassadors or disputes between two states. Texas is trying to use the dispute between states class to worm its way in. Here's a good article that goes into great detail on the case: Election Law Experts Say Lone Star State’s ‘Dangerous’ Stunt Has ‘No Chance of Success’ at Supreme Court
Original jurisdiction
IIUC, while we tend to think of the US Supreme Court as an appellate court, there are areas where they have exclusive original jurisdiction and state v. state cases are one of those.
As for whom TX is suing, as a practical matter it makes sense to sue states with Republican-controlled legislatures, and particularly those whose last-minute changes to voting systems by the states' executive and judicial branches led to chaotic and questionable results.
Vote by mail in Oregon has been in place for twenty years and was adopted by popular vote.
I don't personally support it, but its implementation was reasonably well-planned and implemented. Big difference compared to say, Nevada, where big changes were adopted just three or four months before the election. Or PA, where the state supreme court ordered changes, or GA where big changes in procedures were made in a consent agreement with the DNC...
Shut Up?
Uh, irony thy name is C99.
Fascism, thy name is Shut Up.
Please, please, pretty please with sugar on top, report me to The Authorities. Your true colors are showing.
I am now finally and completely done with message boards. They are all filled with "characters" like you.
Farewell.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
Farewell. I'm sad to see you go.
Very few message boards allow personal attacks on other users. However, your opinion and expertise are certainly welcome here, and I wish you would stay. We have a wide variety of political views and this is an open and freewheeling forum. Many of us are refugees from Daily Kos, where groupthink took over and divergent views were banned.
Some of "us" haven't fully gotten free of That Place
Some of "us" have skins that are still too thin, and lash out at any perceived offense. Some of "us" still believe that the best defense is a frontal attack. Some of "us" still think that "Only We Are Right" and no one else's opinion is to be tolerated. Especially if it differs so much from "ours" that it looks like an "enemy".
I don't know if this is a That Place strategy or a Reddit one, but some of "us" seem to believe that the way to make "our" opinion the "victor" is to beat the subject to death with umptillion repetitive, gloating, sneering posts.
I ignore those kinds of posts on Reddit (in fact I sometimes Hide them). I ignore them here too.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
OMG
I just up-voted an EDG comment...
What's the world coming to.
By all means stick around FwF, the world needs more respectful debate, not echo chambers.
Edg, I see and understand your grounds for complaint,
but STFU isn't really an appropriate response, ok. In a few days we will or will not have martial law and civil war and the question of whether or not that should be the only thing we discuss here will be moot. I will also discuss the attack with the attacker.
be well and have a good one.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
The problem is that "therefore" is baseless and cannot stand.
That is not to say that the Supremes can't and/or won't buy it, because they are politicized,
but it is not per se valid.
The legislatures don't annually specify exact locations of polling places, nor, in some states, even voting district boundaries, nor the type of paper or ink used in the ballots, nor their exact design nor wording, etc., etc. Vast amounts of details have been delegated, and, what specifically has been deligated and to whom and whether and under what circumstances, like emergencies (and how those might be defined), things like emergency additional ad hoc voting locations or mail-in ballots may be used is pretty clearly a matter of state law. One cannot assume that because the legislature did not specify blue ink, it cannot be used in a year in which black ink is scarce, nor that because they did not specify mail-in ballots, that blue ink and mail-in ballots cannot be used without resort to detailed analysis of state law on a state by state basis. In the end, whether anybody's interpretation of state law is correct is not really a matter that should be within the Supremes' original jurisdiction.
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Assertions that there is a coordinated effort to suppress a
legitimate narrative, while arguably permissible, are pretty offensive and likely to give offense to a lot of the people here. Asserting that this is being done by people simply posting something ofther than the narrative of your choice is a pretty thin and feeble argument.
While you might find it silly to discuss the merits or lack thereof of the various lawsuits filed by the GOP and its agents in various states pertaining to fraud, calling such straw man oriented is clearly a misstatement because they address actual events.
Just as you are free to post as many posts as you wish about the coming of martial law and civil war and or about the ramifications and repercussions of various alternative Covid responses, others are equally free to post as many posts as they see fit about things like GOP lawsuits alleging fraud or government stimulus proposals or even what's on TV tonight or today's XKCD or Far Side cartoon.
Alleging that others, posting whatever they want is silly is not acceptable, whether or not the content is, in your opinion, or even objectively, silly. Alleging that it is part of a conspiracy to suppress youor chosen narrative is definitely unacceptable, especially insofar as you have not bothered to post great numbers of posts repeating your preferred thesis.
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
I support drone strikes on Texas
Let's bomb whitey!!!
/snark
Take that Florida!
How dare those states make elections more secure! If we don't stop them next time they'll have fair elections.
On to Biden since 1973
Sign at Washington State border
Welcome to Washington.
Texans welcome here.
But leave attitude at border.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
Georgia Governor Brian Kemp just did a live press
conference to say that Georgia’s electors will go to Biden. I don’t know what SCOTUS can do to change that, but Georgia is done. Kemp also wanted to dispel the idea that Republicans should not vote for Senators (yech) Perdue and Loeffler in the upcoming runoff. Something about a “red wall” (chuckle) to stop socialism.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
The Governor and Secretary of State of Georgia will
someday have to face Georgia voters, who seem to have made it plain that they expect to have their votes counted. Rudy, et al, have no such constraints on their behavior. Giuliani seems to have ruined whatever shred of reputation as a good lawyer he had left with this caper. What can he be thinking?
Mary Bennett
OK, this whole damn thread has gone whacko. Can we all
take a deep breath and go whacko. That said as preface, I'll put in my 2 cents worth.
The Tejas GOP is clearly trying to get within the Surpemes' original jurisdiction by castint this as a suit or conflict between states. The supremes needn't accept it, and I think it is stretching it as to standing.
Second the case asserts a Constitutional violation which does not, on the face of it, exist absent other facts, facts not in evidence. The Constitution says the state legislators shall direct the manner of appointing electors. It does not say that procedural details cannot be delegated, as they already are in every state that I know of. The color and type of ballot, location of polling places, boundaries of Congressional districts and all that are generally not specified by state legislators. The extent to which and circumstances under which vote by mail ballots may be used is a state law question, to be determined by the state courts.
That said, the Supremes are now a political organization to an extent I can't recall except in a couple of specific instances, so anything can happen.
Caveat: IANAL, but did take a crapload of undergrad con law, have read tons of law and cases on the job and worked with a lot of attorneys on a lot legal issues back when I worked for a living.
be well, have a good one, and calm down.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Thank you for that explanation.
Still clear as mud to me, my fault entirely, I have never understood legal matters. That is one reason I scrupulously follow the law whenever possible (I am not going to walk miles to cross a street on the crosswalk), because I would be lost trying to explain much of anything to a judge, never mind a jury.
For whatever it might be worth, I doubt John Roberts wants to preside over the Court selecting a president absent pretty compelling evidence of fraud, which we have not yet seen. And would some Trump acolyte please explain how the Dem. establishment, an outfit hitherto not known for competence, managed invisibly to stuff ballot boxes for Biden but not for the moderate Dems. (Schumercrats) who were also running. OTOH, that does sound like the Dems we know and love; lets steal the general for Uncle Joe but don't give him a Congress he can work with.
I am not understanding how Texas claiming, say, Ohio voting was done wrong is a dispute between Texas and Ohio. It looks to my lay persons everyday understanding like Texas is a. a sore loser, and b. a bully. MYOB, Texas. I wonder how the legislators of the three states feel about being told by the Texas AG that you guys didn't do your jobs so we are going to make the Supremes make you do it our way.
Mary Bennett
Having everyone involved
playing by the same (at least broadly defined) rules *matters*.
If, in any business or competitive game you observe the rules and others, with impunity, do not - are you a 'sore loser' if you complain about their actions? Are you not being victimized?
EH points about legislatures not making finely tuned rules about how elections are to be administered is something valid to consider, but whether the actions of the courts and SoS's of the states went well beyond that is something that merits the court looking at.
Whether there was actual fraud or not aside, a lot would seem to ride on the necessary assertion the state has to make when sending its electors: that the election has been "duly canvassed". If an election, for whatever reason, is so chaotic that it is impossible to know what the legitimate result is, then it's hard to see how it's possible for it to be duly canvassed and for one side or other to be declared the winner.
I still say the more ethical thing to do in that situation would be one of the following:
a) Send no electors.
b) Make an approximate division and send both D&R electors.
c) Send electors pledged to someone beside either candidate. I'd be good with Scooby Doo or Alfred E. Neumann but Sponge Bob might be acceptable...
As to what legislators in the affected states think about this, I have no idea about all of them, but 60+ member of the PA legislature are asking Congress to object to their state's slate of electors
source
I can maybe understand that, but
playing by the same (at least broadly defined) rules "matters" only if and when the rules are clearly understood and agreed upon by all parties ahead of time. You don't get to retroactively change the rules because you lost. Hey, no fair the Queen should only move forwards and back. Down with traditionalist anti-male bias. The King should be the most powerful piece!
I know, how could anyone not know, that blatant try to stop me hypocrisy is part of the RW playbook, but the principle of State's Rights either does or does not mean that states get to organize matters of internal governance as they (their citizens) choose.
Mary Bennett