Texas Election Lawsuit added to Supreme Court Docket

  • Thread starter Thread starter gam197
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From a TX newspaper:

" For decades, Republicans have railed against frivolous lawsuits that clog the courts with specious claims, sometimes simply to grab attention or make a political point.

Now, in the increasingly ridiculous tenure of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, such suits are apparently part of the toolkit.

Paxton asked the U.S. Supreme Court in a petition filed Monday to effectively overturn the results of four other states’ presidential elections. He argues that officials in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin unlawfully changed voting laws because of the pandemic. He contends that Texas voters were harmed by the states’ alleged violations of equal-protection laws.

By Paxton’s strange accounting, states should be able to intervene in their counterparts’ election procedures. It’s a silly argument that the court should reject completely.

And it abruptly cuts against the very states’ rights arguments Texas has made for decades about election laws. If Paxton were to prevail, imagine the attorney general of California licking his chops at the chance to go after Texas’ voter ID requirements.

https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/editorials/article247697720.html
 
Nepperhan said:
And it abruptly cuts against the very states’ rights arguments Texas has made for decades about election laws.
Click to expand...
It’s also asking the Court to be the very thing conservatives claim to fear so much: activist judges!

There is literally no precedent, or law allowing SCOTUS to do what he is asking. It would be the definition of judicial activism.
 
pnewton said:
One thing all this month long mess has shown us is that the position of the incumbent and his followers about being strict constitutionalists is only a position of convenience, hypocritically abandoned at need.
Click to expand...
As someone with a law degree who works in legal news, I have always felt that “judicial activism” has merely meant “the other side made a ruling I don’t like.” There’s rarely any actual principled belief behind its use.
 
Paxton’s still got those securities fraud charges hanging over him. Not to mention a brand shiny new FBI investigation.
He’s hoping this stunt will get him a pardon from Trump.
 
“…block election outcome” might be better written and “rectify an outcome.”
 
puer.dei said:
Paxton’s still got those securities fraud charges hanging over him. Not to mention a brand shiny new FBI investigation.
He’s hoping this stunt will get him a pardon from Trump.
Click to expand...
If only someone had taped a conversation to that affect.
 
Hey Puer, is that all you have? Why not offer an actual argument based on some fact or knowledge you have. I’d even settle for understanding why you think it’s a “stretch.” The difference between this filing and most (or all) others is that it’s based purely on the matter of law. It doesn’t allege fraud or require a finding of fact to that effect. TX is suggesting that the legislatures in those states created extraconstitutional laws that (clearly) cannot be supported by a court that is sworn to protect the Constitution. Just because you don’t like the way this ends, doesn’t mean you get to simply attack my argument as a stretch, rather than with facts. Tell me how that’s a stretch. Tell me how it’s wrong. I’ll wait.
 
slawrence1111 said:
Why not offer an actual argument based on some fact or knowledge you have.
Click to expand...
I have knowledge of Ken Paxton’s well-known lack of ethics. I have knowledge of the awesome track record of these ridiculous lawsuits. And I have enough common sense to know that one state can’t disenfranchise another state’s voters.

Enjoy your fantasyland while it lasts.

And you may be right, maybe it’s not a stretch. “Stretch” is probably far too inadequate a description of so much ridiculous.
 
slawrence1111 said:
TX is suggesting that the legislatures in those states created extraconstitutional laws that (clearly) cannot be supported by a court that is sworn to protect the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Okay. All laws are extraconstitutional because they are not part of the Constitution. Even if the could prove it, they would have to prove there can be no laws period, only the Constitution. That argument is so bad no one has ever tried to make it.

Each state can have its own laws as to how it appoints electors.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
Click to expand...
The argument that Texas is affected by the way others choose electors is absurd. Of course the are affected, just like California was affected four years ago by the way other states chose 306 electors for Donald Trump. It is known as losing.
 
I wasn’t suggesting that you tell me that you have knowledge, because you’re a Texan (or whatever). I was attempting to suggest that you back your argument up with actual fact. Telling me that you have common sense and that I should enjoy my fantasyland isn’t an argument of any argument. Do you get that? Telling me that “stretch” wasn’t enough of an adjective to describe how ludicrous my argument was doesn’t add to your argument. It’s more of the same. It’s not smart.
 
Last edited:
Just be careful with the words slawrence1111 or they will flag your post on this thread and try to get you banned.

Again welcome to the forum!
 
Last edited:
slawrence1111 said:
It’s more of the same. Stupid.
Click to expand...
Since you only joined 4 hours ago, I will share this from Scripture, so insults do not become too prevalent.
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, that’s true. Extraconstitutional is anything not in the Constitution. But I think it’s possible you missed the more vernacular use of the term. The Constitution is the primary law of the United States. It is the only law enacted that was voted on by popular vote. It’s a little like the Primary Directive in Star Trek. No matter what else happens, and what other laws are enacted, we cannot work against the very simple, very basic Constitution, which very plainly explains individual and states’ rights in a federal system.

If the point above is clear, then I have to believe that you recognize that when a few key swing states change their laws, in ways that do not follow the U.S. Constitution, those laws cannot stand. It’s really that simple. And that’s what the SCOTUS has to decide.
 
slawrence1111 said:
seems to me that when someone says that my argument is “ridiculous”
Click to expand...
There is a bit of a distinction between labelling an argument and labelling a person. The latter is more liky to be a reason for moderation here.
 
Wampa said:
As someone with a law degree who works in legal news, I have always felt that “judicial activism” has merely meant “the other side made a ruling I don’t like.” There’s rarely any actual principled belief behind its use.
Click to expand...
I’m genuinely curious: do you think schools of jurisprudence truly exist as (semi) objective frameworks of interpretation, or that they are just convenient ways for judges to give their political beliefs a greater degree of legitimacy?

I ask because I’ve always thought that if schools of jurisprudence were “real,” we would have far more decisions that stray away from the two-party dichotomy. As it stands, almost every constitutional case is decided in a way that appears to fit with one party’s view.

Again, just curious.
 
Did you assume I thought anything other than the argument was stupid?
 
Last edited:
slawrence1111 said:
in ways that do not follow the U.S. Constitution
Click to expand...
But there are no unconstitutional (the correct term) election laws, not unless you are believing that failing, and failing, and failing, and failing, and failing to demonstrate that the election laws are unconstitutional is somehow evidence that the are.

Pennsylvania Republicans attempted this same challenge in their own state and was unanimously denied in one sentence by this same Supreme Court. These same laws will not suddenly become unconstitutional because it is Texas bringing the suit.

So you had the wrong word for what something is called when it goes against the Constitution, and you are wrong about the key argument that it is the only law voted on by popular vote, which it wasn’t.
 
slawrence1111 said:
Did you assume I thought anything other than the argument was stupid?
Click to expand...
I think it’s best to avoid ambiguity and not leave much room for interpretation for something that could sound like a personal insult.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top