Texas Files Lawsuit With SCOTUS

Rommey

Rommey

Well-Known Member
Texas Files Lawsuit With SCOTUS Challenging Election Procedures in 4 Swing States
Texas is suing Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin in the Supreme Court over "unconstitutional irregularities" in the election process, saying the states used the coronavirus pandemic to justify "ignoring state laws" with regard to absentee and mail-in voting.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the lawsuit on Tuesday, alleging the four swing states violated state and federal law when they modified election procedures. The four battleground states listed in the suit were key to President Donald Trump's path to victory in 2016 and were vital to his reelection bid. Given the number of electoral votes at stake, the plaintiffs argued the states will "determine the outcome of the election."

"With all unlawful votes discounted, the election result is an open question that this Court must address," Paxton's brief to the Supreme Court said.

Without factoring the four states into the electoral vote totals, former Vice President Biden, who has 306 votes, would be down to 244, compared with Trump's 232. Therefore, the plaintiffs argue, those states are critical to the election. Trump won all four states in 2016 but lost them this year.

Let's see if the SCOTUS is serious about getting involved in all of this. I think we might get an indication of how willing the court is likely to get involved based on what happens with Alito's dealing with Pennsylvania. If he drops the proverbial hammer on them, then this Texas suit will likely follow with a similar outcome. If they do basically nothing with Pennsylvania, then I wouldn't expect too much to come of this suit.
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
This will go nowhere.

I can tell you that this country will not be safe for Democracy until George Soros and his son die.
It is his money that is electing these turds.
 
AnthonyJames

AnthonyJames

R.I.P. My Brother Rick
MSally said:
Texas is going to have a hard time proving they have an interest in or injury from election laws that are set by other states, particularly since those states have already litigated the issue like in PA.
This isn’t going anywhere, get ready to label ACB, Goursch, and Kavanaugh swamp creatures.

Click to expand...
Why do you have a hidden YaPoo URL in your post? Are you a Poo-bot?💩

And here's a secret, :gossip: It's going to the Supreme Court. You know, the one Soros doesn't own.
 
M

MSally

Active Member
AnthonyJames said:
Why do you have a hidden YaPoo URL in your post? Are you a Poo-bot?💩

And here's a secret, :gossip:It's going to the Supreme Court. You know, the one Soros doesn't own.
Click to expand...
Here’s a secret, SCOTUS just Refused to hear a case in PA based on the same legal theories. Click the link and try reading
 
Rommey

Rommey

Well-Known Member
MSally said:
Here’s a secret, SCOTUS just Refused to hear a case in PA based on the same legal theories. Click the link and try reading
Click to expand...
The decision had no narrative as to why:

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020

ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98 KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.


It's worth noting that this denial is only for the injunctive relief; the case is still pending (i.e., they haven't denied certiorari yet)
 
Last edited:
M

MSally

Active Member
Rommey said:
The decision had no narrative as to why:

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020

ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98 KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.


It's worth noting that this denial is only for the injunctive relief; the case is still pending (i.e., they haven't denied certiorari yet)
Click to expand...
that is true, but the injunction was tIme sensitive. Denying it makes the case fairly moot.
Rommey said:
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and South Dakota have all joined in with Texas lawsuit.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t put too much hope in that case. The constitution gives states sovereignty over their election processes. They can have as much mail in voting as they want.
 
Bann

Bann

Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
PREMO Member
MSally said:
that is true, but the injunction was tIme sensitive. Denying it makes the case fairly moot.


I wouldn’t put too much hope in that case. The constitution gives states sovereignty over their election processes. They can have as much mail in voting as they want.
Click to expand...
STATEMENT
...the election in Defendant States was also compromised by numerous changes to the State legislatures’ duly enacted election statutes by non-legislative actors—including both “friendly” suits settled in courts and executive fiats via guidance to election officials—in ways that undermined state statutory ballot-integrity protections such as signature and witness requirements for casting ballots and poll-watcher requirements for counting them. State legislatures have plenary authority to set the method for selecting presidential electors, Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000) (“Bush II”), and “significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question.” Id. at 113 (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring); accord Bush v. Palm Beach Cty. Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70, 76 (2000) (“Bush I”)"

"State legislatures retain the authority to appoint electors under the federal Electors Clause, even if state laws or constitutions provide otherwise."

The Defendant states changed their election laws and violated federal election laws. What they've done is unconstitutional, and among other issues named in the lawsuit - is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
 
Rommey

Rommey

Well-Known Member
MSally said:
that is true, but the injunction was tIme sensitive. Denying it makes the case fairly moot.
Click to expand...
No, I don't think so. Denying an injunction could mean the plaintiffs won't win on the merits, but its more likely that the court feels the injunction is not warranted before they hear the case (assuming that is the way the go). The real drop-dead date is January 6th. That's when Congress officially declares the winner. The electors cast votes on Dec 14, so there is time for them to hear the case and make whatever ruling they will make before that date.

I wouldn’t put too much hope in that case. The constitution gives states sovereignty over their election processes. They can have as much mail in voting as they want.
Click to expand...
True, but they have laws passed by the legislature; the legislatures are expressly called out in the Constitution as the sole decider of how the elections and electors are chosen. The Texas case alleges (and documents) specific violations of state election laws and procedures.
 
Bann

Bann

Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
PREMO Member
Rommey said:
No, I don't think so. Denying an injunction could mean the plaintiffs won't win on the merits, but its more likely that the court feels the injunction is not warranted before they hear the case (assuming that is the way the go). The real drop-dead date is January 6th. That's when Congress officially declares the winner. The electors cast votes on Dec 14, so there is time for them to hear the case and make whatever ruling they will make before that date.


True, but they have laws passed by the legislature; the legislatures are expressly called out in the Constitution as the sole decider of how the elections and electors are chosen. The Texas case alleges (and documents) specific violations of state election laws and procedures.
Click to expand...
:yay:
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Maryland didn't wait to steal my vote.
They did that years ago when they voted that the majority decided who would get the electoral votes.
They completely stole the votes of any Republican in this state.
 
M

MSally

Active Member
Bann said:
STATEMENT
...the election in Defendant States was also compromised by numerous changes to the State legislatures’ duly enacted election statutes by non-legislative actors—including both “friendly” suits settled in courts and executive fiats via guidance to election officials—in ways that undermined state statutory ballot-integrity protections such as signature and witness requirements for casting ballots and poll-watcher requirements for counting them. State legislatures have plenary authority to set the method for selecting presidential electors, Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000) (“Bush II”), and “significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question.” Id. at 113 (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring); accord Bush v. Palm Beach Cty. Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70, 76 (2000) (“Bush I”)"

"State legislatures retain the authority to appoint electors under the federal Electors Clause, even if state laws or constitutions provide otherwise."

The Defendant states changed their election laws and violated federal election laws. What they've done is unconstitutional, and among other issues named in the lawsuit - is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Click to expand...
If state laws and state constitutions provide otherwise that states legislature must have passed the law or constitutional clause/amendment.
 
Bann

Bann

Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
PREMO Member
MSally said:
If state laws and state constitutions provide otherwise that states legislature must have passed the law or constitutional clause/amendment.
Click to expand...
You need to provide the backup to that comment. because it is incorrect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top