I thought TX was a red state???

[Jake]

...but even so, the Texas attorney general is suing to overturn an election result IN ANOTHER STATE.

Let that sink in.

And understand that a bunch of other Republican states wrote "friend of the court briefs" supporting the guy from Texas, altho they have not "joined" the law suit.

So all you Federalist paper waving state's rights conservative Republicans, please understand ... this means you waive the right to home rule because the federal court - if they decide to allow the Texas case to move forward - they are deciding if the federal government can overturn a state's election.

Think about that for a minute. Libertarians, if there be any real ones here, you best think about it too.

 

[Jake]

The plot thickens... he wants one of those pre-emptive Trump pardons, I betcha.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Another swamp dweller, looks like.

 

[Jake]

It’s almost like a communist named Vlad is playing fantasy politics with the US GOP.

 

[Q]

...but even so, the Texas attorney general is suing to overturn an election result IN ANOTHER STATE.

Let that sink in.

And understand that a bunch of other Republican states wrote "friend of the court briefs" supporting the guy from Texas, altho they have not "joined" the law suit.

So all you Federalist paper waving state's rights conservative Republicans, please understand ... this means you waive the right to home rule because the federal court - if they decide to allow the Texas case to move forward - they are deciding if the federal government can overturn a state's election.

Think about that for a minute. Libertarians, if there be any real ones here, you best think about it too.

Wouldn't that be a good thing? It's weird that states can have their own laws apart from other states. Somewhere a government should have the power to overrule a state.

 

[Jake]

...but even so, the Texas attorney general is suing to overturn an election result IN ANOTHER STATE.

Let that sink in.

And understand that a bunch of other Republican states wrote "friend of the court briefs" supporting the guy from Texas, altho they have not "joined" the law suit.

So all you Federalist paper waving state's rights conservative Republicans, please understand ... this means you waive the right to home rule because the federal court - if they decide to allow the Texas case to move forward - they are deciding if the federal government can overturn a state's election.

Think about that for a minute. Libertarians, if there be any real ones here, you best think about it too.

weird

Wouldn't that be a good thing? It's that states can have their own laws apart from other states. Somewhere a government should have the power to overrule a state.

Oh, it DOES... sometimes, somewheres. However it's settled law that states conduct their own elections even if the Fed decrees when the election is to happen. There's a constitutional basis for this that's never been messed with.

 

[Admin.]

The Bastard Bootlickers seem to be steering clear of this topic. Maybe tonight after Hannity they'll have some input.

 

[Succubus]

I always thought Federal trumped state.

 

[Blazor]

The way I understand it......


Texas brought a suit against four states that did something they cannot do: they violated the U.S. Constitution in their conduct of the presidential election. And this violation occurred regardless of the amount of election fraud that may have resulted. The four defendant states are Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Texas filed the suit directly in the Supreme Court. Article III of the Constitution lists a small number of categories of cases in which the Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction.” One of those categories concerns “Controversies between two or more states.” Texas’s suit is exactly that.

The Texas suit is clear, and it presents a compelling case. The four offending states each violated the U.S. Constitution in two ways.

First, they violated the Electors Clause of Article II of the Constitution when executive or judicial officials in the states changed the rules of the election without going through the state legislatures. The Electors Clause requires that each State “shall appoint” its presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

...

The second constitutional violation occurred when individual counties in each of the four states changed the way that they would receive, evaluate, or treat the ballots. Twenty years ago, in the landmark case of Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when one Florida county treated ballots one way, and another Florida county treated ballots a different way. Voters had the constitutional right to have their ballots treated equally from county to county.



Oh and now its up to 21 states :Grin3:

21 States Now Support Texas SCOTUS Lawsuit, 42% of America to Sue 8% of America

 

[Jake]

I always thought Federal trumped state.

The Tenth Amendment says that the Federal Government only has those powers delegated in the Constitution. If it isn't listed, it belongs to the states or to the people.

First, they violated the Electors Clause of Article II of the Constitution when executive or judicial officials in the states changed the rules of the election without going through the state legislatures. The Electors Clause requires that each State “shall appoint” its presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

First, since the acronym LOL doesn't appear in your post I'm inclined to believe you've cut and pasted this overly respectful summary of the Texas LOLsuit without attribution. Second, since neither you nor I (nor, probably, the author of the article you quote) are actually certified to argue at the SCOTUS level or even before a local county judge, we're probably just trolling here...but correct me if that's wrong.

Anyway, the argument that the appointment of the electors, as directed by the Legislature, and the changing of the rules of the election by officials of the executive or judicial branches, are the same thing, is a false argument. They are two different things, and we don't know (just to name one possibility) that an Election Commission, part of the state executive branch, was NOT in fact duly set up with legislative approval and given the authority to do those things in the legislature's stead. That may take some sorting out, but I think this is a leaky bucket of an argument and some Republican constitutional scholars think so too.

the landmark case of Bush v. Gore

I think "landmark" is an overreach, since we all know the 2000 election was stolen by partisan judges siding with a bunch of fukin crackers.

The second constitutional violation occurred

Where is the language in the constitution, or are you trying to stretch the Bush v Gore opinion's language to cover this election? Bear in mind, the Bush v Gore decision is hardly what we call Settled Law since there's never been a subsequent case brought to the court that resembles it in any way, where that decision has been reiterated and endorsed.

The LOLsuit is a fukin joke, and it's so clearly so that you could read a newspaper thru it.

~~~~~

Face it, all these Republican traitors as well as the 100+ Repub congressmen who are trying to climb on board are just showboating for the Tlorump voters and trying to stay out of Trump's sights since they know he's keeping a list of who's backing him and who ain't. And a goodly number of them don't even WANT four more years of the Trump shit show, and have said so privately.

 

[Jake]

BTW, none of those states that "support" the suit have actually JOINED it, have they?

Maybe tomorrow, eh.

 

[Frood]

Those states conducted election fraud. I hope they get crucified in the court.

 

[Blazor]

I always thought Federal trumped state.

The Tenth Amendment says that the Federal Government only has those powers delegated in the Constitution. If it isn't listed, it belongs to the states or to the people.

First, they violated the Electors Clause of Article II of the Constitution when executive or judicial officials in the states changed the rules of the election without going through the state legislatures. The Electors Clause requires that each State “shall appoint” its presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

First, since the acronym LOL doesn't appear in your post I'm inclined to believe you've cut and pasted this overly respectful summary of the Texas LOLsuit without attribution. Second, since neither you nor I (nor, probably, the author of the article you quote) are actually certified to argue at the SCOTUS level or even before a local county judge, we're probably just trolling here...but correct me if that's wrong.

Anyway, the argument that the appointment of the electors, as directed by the Legislature, and the changing of the rules of the election by officials of the executive or judicial branches, are the same thing, is a false argument. They are two different things, and we don't know (just to name one possibility) that an Election Commission, part of the state executive branch, was NOT in fact duly set up with legislative approval and given the authority to do those things in the legislature's stead. That may take some sorting out, but I think this is a leaky bucket of an argument and some Republican constitutional scholars think so too.

the landmark case of Bush v. Gore

I think "landmark" is an overreach, since we all know the 2000 election was stolen by partisan judges siding with a bunch of fukin crackers.

The second constitutional violation occurred

Where is the language in the constitution, or are you trying to stretch the Bush v Gore opinion's language to cover this election? Bear in mind, the Bush v Gore decision is hardly what we call Settled Law since there's never been a subsequent case brought to the court that resembles it in any way, where that decision has been reiterated and endorsed.

The LOLsuit is a fukin joke, and it's so clearly so that you could read a newspaper thru it.

~~~~~

Face it, all these Republican traitors as well as the 100+ Repub congressmen who are trying to climb on board are just showboating for the Tlorump voters and trying to stay out of Trump's sights since they know he's keeping a list of who's backing him and who ain't. And a goodly number of them don't even WANT four more years of the Trump shit show, and have said so privately.

 

[Jake]

we're probably just trolling here...but correct me if that's wrong.

White flag noted. :Grin3:

 

[Blazor]

we're probably just trolling here...but correct me if that's wrong.

White flag noted. :Grin3:

Its too much for tonight lol. I wont deny it was a copy paste, hence the italic font lol. But, all these states do have a point, and it deserves attention, or we will continually get fucked and our votes will never matter, ever again. Fraud aint right. I cant stand liars and cheaters. Had Biden won fair and square, I would of simply said "this country fucked", and that would of been the end of it. No, all these fucks have been after him his whole presidency, and the amount of fraud stacks higher than the Statue of Liberty.

 

[Admin.]

Trump lost by the highest number of votes ever in a Presidential election, you crybabby snowflakes need to stop your sobbing, and say hello to reality this ain't no disco, this ain't no game show, we ain't got time for that now....

 

[Jake]

Those states conducted election fraud. I hope they get crucified in the court.

Another Internet law degree steps up to join the discussion. :Dazed: :Dazed: :Dazed:

 

[Blazor]

Trump lost by the highest number of votes ever in a Presidential election, you crybabby snowflakes need to stop your sobbing, and say hello to reality this ain't no disco, this ain't no game show, we ain't got time for that now....

 

[Frood]

Those states conducted election fraud. I hope they get crucified in the court.

Another Internet law degree steps up to join the discussion. :Dazed: :Dazed: :Dazed:

I've got a nose for looking at investigative journalism and sources, Snozz Vader...

 

[Jake]

Those states conducted election fraud. I hope they get crucified in the court.

Another Internet law degree steps up to join the discussion. :Dazed: :Dazed: :Dazed:

I've got a nose for looking at investigative journalism and sources, Snozz Vader...

Your eyes would be more help.

 

[LotusBud]

...but even so, the Texas attorney general is suing to overturn an election result IN ANOTHER STATE.

Let that sink in.

And understand that a bunch of other Republican states wrote "friend of the court briefs" supporting the guy from Texas, altho they have not "joined" the law suit.

So all you Federalist paper waving state's rights conservative Republicans, please understand ... this means you waive the right to home rule because the federal court - if they decide to allow the Texas case to move forward - they are deciding if the federal government can overturn a state's election.

Think about that for a minute. Libertarians, if there be any real ones here, you best think about it too.

There aren't any real ones here. The crowd here doesn't understand the basics of logic or constitutional law. Not in any way. They understand bluster, bullshit, and hatred wrapped up in a soundbite. That's it.

 

[LotusBud]

we're probably just trolling here...but correct me if that's wrong.

White flag noted. :Grin3:

Its too much for tonight lol. I wont deny it was a copy paste, hence the italic font lol. But, all these states do have a point, and it deserves attention, or we will continually get fucked and our votes will never matter, ever again. Fraud aint right. I cant stand liars and cheaters. Had Biden won fair and square, I would of simply said "this country fucked", and that would of been the end of it. No, all these fucks have been after him his whole presidency, and the amount of fraud stacks higher than the Statue of Liberty.

If this fake recount were to go ahead, it would prove that the votes of the majority don't count, nothing more.

 

[Frood]

...but even so, the Texas attorney general is suing to overturn an election result IN ANOTHER STATE.

Let that sink in.

And understand that a bunch of other Republican states wrote "friend of the court briefs" supporting the guy from Texas, altho they have not "joined" the law suit.

So all you Federalist paper waving state's rights conservative Republicans, please understand ... this means you waive the right to home rule because the federal court - if they decide to allow the Texas case to move forward - they are deciding if the federal government can overturn a state's election.

Think about that for a minute. Libertarians, if there be any real ones here, you best think about it too.

There aren't any real ones here. The crowd here doesn't understand the basics of logic or constitutional law. Not in any way. They understand bluster, bullshit, and hatred wrapped up in a soundbite. That's it.

:LOL2: :LOL2: :LOL2:

Said a democrat who doesn't honour her republic!

 

[LotusBud]

...but even so, the Texas attorney general is suing to overturn an election result IN ANOTHER STATE.

Let that sink in.

And understand that a bunch of other Republican states wrote "friend of the court briefs" supporting the guy from Texas, altho they have not "joined" the law suit.

So all you Federalist paper waving state's rights conservative Republicans, please understand ... this means you waive the right to home rule because the federal court - if they decide to allow the Texas case to move forward - they are deciding if the federal government can overturn a state's election.

Think about that for a minute. Libertarians, if there be any real ones here, you best think about it too.

There aren't any real ones here. The crowd here doesn't understand the basics of logic or constitutional law. Not in any way. They understand bluster, bullshit, and hatred wrapped up in a soundbite. That's it.

:LOL2: :LOL2: :LOL2:

Said a democrat who doesn't honour her republic!

I'm not a democrat, for the thousandth time.

 

[Biggie Smiles]

we're probably just trolling here...but correct me if that's wrong.

White flag noted. :Grin3:

No Nose Noted :Grin3:

 

[Frood]

...but even so, the Texas attorney general is suing to overturn an election result IN ANOTHER STATE.

Let that sink in.

And understand that a bunch of other Republican states wrote "friend of the court briefs" supporting the guy from Texas, altho they have not "joined" the law suit.

So all you Federalist paper waving state's rights conservative Republicans, please understand ... this means you waive the right to home rule because the federal court - if they decide to allow the Texas case to move forward - they are deciding if the federal government can overturn a state's election.

Think about that for a minute. Libertarians, if there be any real ones here, you best think about it too.

There aren't any real ones here. The crowd here doesn't understand the basics of logic or constitutional law. Not in any way. They understand bluster, bullshit, and hatred wrapped up in a soundbite. That's it.

:LOL2: :LOL2: :LOL2:

Said a democrat who doesn't honour her republic!

I'm not a democrat, for the thousandth time.

Not all democrats are socialists, but all socialists will vote democrat because they hate the ideals of a Republic enshrined in the Bill of Rights (which they both seek to liquidate).

You'll betray your friends later... :LOL1:

 

[Biggie Smiles]

we're probably just trolling here...but correct me if that's wrong.

White flag noted. :Grin3:

Its too much for tonight lol. I wont deny it was a copy paste, hence the italic font lol. But, all these states do have a point, and it deserves attention, or we will continually get fucked and our votes will never matter, ever again. Fraud aint right. I cant stand liars and cheaters. Had Biden won fair and square, I would of simply said "this country fucked", and that would of been the end of it. No, all these fucks have been after him his whole presidency, and the amount of fraud stacks higher than the Statue of Liberty.

If this fake recount were to go ahead, it would prove that the votes of the majority don't count, nothing more.

As they never should at the federal level in a republic.

 

[Frood]

we're probably just trolling here...but correct me if that's wrong.

White flag noted. :Grin3:

No Nose Noted :Grin3:

Jake should fashion a prosthetic nose from terracotta and smear sprout seed all over it.

With a steady supply of nose hole butter, that Chia Pet could remove a few tonnes of carbon.

 

[Succubus]

we're probably just trolling here...but correct me if that's wrong.

White flag noted. :Grin3:

No Nose Noted :Grin3:

Jake should fashion a prosthetic nose from terracotta and smear sprout seed all over it.

With a steady supply of nose hole butter, that Chia Pet could remove a few tonnes of carbon.

Is his nose like that in real life? Like Fr?

 

[Frood]

we're probably just trolling here...but correct me if that's wrong.

White flag noted. :Grin3:

No Nose Noted :Grin3:

Jake should fashion a prosthetic nose from terracotta and smear sprout seed all over it.

With a steady supply of nose hole butter, that Chia Pet could remove a few tonnes of carbon.

Is his nose like that in real life? Like Fr?

It's not pretty...

 

[Biggie Smiles]

we're probably just trolling here...but correct me if that's wrong.

White flag noted. :Grin3:

No Nose Noted :Grin3:

Jake should fashion a prosthetic nose from terracotta and smear sprout seed all over it.

With a steady supply of nose hole butter, that Chia Pet could remove a few tonnes of carbon.

Is his nose like that in real life? Like Fr?

He doesn't have a nose. Seriously. It's like looking at a vagina positioned right under his eyes, directly above his upper lip

it's disgusting.