Texas Lawsuit

[Jered]

Discuss it here.

If anyone hasn't heard, there are a bunch of states that are suing the states that allowed the Creepy Hair Sniffer to steal things. Essentially Texas is arguing that those states did not allow the legislature to appoint the electors and thus violated the US Constitution.

So, anyway, that's going on and the plot has thickened. There are a bunch of members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly that have sided with the State of Texas against the Commonwealth.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 0Brief.pdf

If anyone else has more, please do share!

[Vonz90]

It is a garbage - not even correctly formed political document put together by the TX AG (note not the Solicitor who would normally prepare such a thing) based on dubious legal theories at best. I expect nothing from it.

Details. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/ ... erm=second

[AlaskaTRX]

It is a garbage - not even correctly formed political document put together by the TX AG (note not the Solicitor who would normally prepare such a thing) based on dubious legal theories at best. I expect nothing from it.

Details. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/ ... erm=second

At times I really wonder which side your on and what version of the Constitution you’re reading.

[HTRN]

If anyone hasn't heard, there are a bunch of states that are suing the states that allowed the Creepy Hair Sniffer to steal things.

At last count, 20 states have joined the lawsuit...

[Vonz90]

It is a garbage - not even correctly formed political document put together by the TX AG (note not the Solicitor who would normally prepare such a thing) based on dubious legal theories at best. I expect nothing from it.

Details. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/ ... erm=second

At times I really wonder which side your on and what version of the Constitution you’re reading.

Wonder all you like, I am just taking a clear eyed look at the situation. There is what I want and there is what reality is and reality does not care what I want.

This is not a real lawsuit, it is political theater. That is fine, if it kickstarts taking election security seriously it will even be useful, but it is not going to result in SCOTUS changing anything and if you think otherwise you will be disappointed.

[AlaskaTRX]

It is a garbage - not even correctly formed political document put together by the TX AG (note not the Solicitor who would normally prepare such a thing) based on dubious legal theories at best. I expect nothing from it.

Details. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/ ... erm=second

At times I really wonder which side your on and what version of the Constitution you’re reading.

Wonder all you like, I am just taking a clear eyed look at the situation. There is what I want and there is what reality is and reality does not care what I want.

This is not a real lawsuit, it is political theater. That is fine, if it kickstarts taking election security seriously it will even be useful, but it is not going to result in SCOTUS changing anything and if you think otherwise you will be disappointed.

I guess when you don’t read the Constitution or look at the evidence your position is an easy one to take.

[Vonz90]

At times I really wonder which side your on and what version of the Constitution you’re reading.

Wonder all you like, I am just taking a clear eyed look at the situation. There is what I want and there is what reality is and reality does not care what I want.

This is not a real lawsuit, it is political theater. That is fine, if it kickstarts taking election security seriously it will even be useful, but it is not going to result in SCOTUS changing anything and if you think otherwise you will be disappointed.

I guess when you don’t read the Constitution or look at the evidence your position is an easy one to take.

Meh, wishcast if you like but it won't change the result. I have no desire to see Biden as POTUS but it is what is going to happen.

The actual opportunity to move the needle was the lawsuit against the last minute changes in PA, that had excellent constitutional and precedence grounds but of course Roberts chickened out because that is what he does. There would be a slim chance if that was the only one but having to flip 3 states is a hill to far and past PA the evidence gets sparce and indeterminate anyway.

It is time to move on to the next fight.

[Jered]

It doesn't surprise me at all too much. I saw a comment on LI that claimed that 2/3 of the election lawsuits have been dismissed based on lack of standing.

[scipioafricanus]

It doesn't surprise me at all too much. I saw a comment on LI that claimed that 2/3 of the election lawsuits have been dismissed based on lack of standing.

Sounds like a good start.

[Johnnyreb]

So the Supreme Court has ruled that close to half the states in the nation have "no standing" to demand that other states OBEY THE LAW and OBEY THE CONSTITUTION?

OK

I think Gov. Abbot in Texas should just pull 100 million votes for Trump out of his ass along with 300 electoral votes for Trump. Declare Trump the winner of the election. And declare that anyone who don't like it can go f*** themselves.

Because that is exactly what the Democrats have done and that is exactly what the 7 Supreme cowards and traitors have declared to be "Constitutional".