Texas Election Lawsuit added to Supreme Court Docket

  • Thread starter Thread starter gam197
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Am I right in thinking this suit seeks to throw out the votes of all four battleground states - and if so, ironically enough, wouldn’t that harm them much more than anything they’ve done could possibly harm Texas?

I don’t see this going anywhere but I marvel at the audaciousness and am once again sickened by the Republican attorneys general who filed the amicus brief supporting Texas’s contention. The Republican Party has lost any shred of credibility it ever had. Shame on them, and shame on me for remaining a member of this cynical, craven party in the hopes it might shake off its cultish devotion to Trump and return to conservative, American values.
 
Last edited:
Nepperhan said:
Trump’s filing is the weidest
Click to expand...
Look at the bright side, maybe his legal team will step in.

I regret every having voted for Paxton, a mistake I will not replicate. I have no use for this sort of subversive grandstanding.
tomarin said:
Am I right in thinking this suit seeks to throw out the votes of all four battleground states -
Click to expand...
Yes. You simply cannot choose which states you want discard because the numbers fit what is needed. This was the approach Gore took in Florida and the SCOTUS ruled against him. Faux pro-life Trumpers are determined to end this in blood. Arizona republicans asked their followers if they are ready to die. Today and attempt was made to bomb the Democratic headquarters in Spokane. This incumbent president may oppose abortion as a political means, but it seems he has no qualms about loss of life in his precious name.

I really struggled with this election, as a moral dilemma. He, and his followers, are proving to me I made the right moral choice. I am only thankful that there is still a part of the GOP that believes in America, the Constitution, and the rule of law.
 
Last edited:
Say what one will about Trump, but he does not ‘go gently into that good night.’ I just hope his bottomless need for attention is not doing lasting harm to our democracy.
 
From one of the Wisconsin lawsuits in federal court.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Joy01 said:
The constitution gives the state legislature sole authority to set the rules for the elections.
Click to expand...
Not so fast.

The term “Elections Clause” refers to Art. 1, § 4, cl. 1, of the United States Constitution that reads as follows:

Article I Section 4: : Congressional elections
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of chusing Senators.”
Click to expand...
You will notice that the President or Vice President is not included here. The Texans are stretching the Constitution.
 
From the Lowell Weicker Amicus brief:

This amici brief focuses on one: the Constitution does not make this Court the multidistrict litigation panel for trials of presidential election disputes. Pursuant to the Electors Clause and 3 U.S.C. § 5, state legislatures have made state courts the tribunals for presidential election disputes. This Court’s only jurisdiction is appellate.

The Electors Clause and 3 U.S.C. § 5 contradict the Plaintiff’s unprecedented argument that a presidential election dispute is a controversy between two or more states. These provisions contradict Plaintiff’s argument by authorizing each state to delegate by statute the adjudication of all controversies or contests concerning federal presidential election results in that state to that state’s courts. Such statutory delegation to state courts is part of each state legislature’s chosen statutory “manner” for presidential elections as much as are the statutes on, for example, mail-in voting. A state’s chosen “manner” applies “exclusively,” McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892), “absent some other constitutional constraint.” Chiafalo v. Washington, 140 S. Ct. 2316, 2324 (2020) (emphasis added).

There is no constitutional constraint against state courts being the trial courts for presidential election disputes. Moreover, 3 U.S.C. § 5 expressly and properly enables a state to designate “its” state tribunals as the “conclusive” arbiter of “any controversy or contest concerning” presidential election results in that state. (Emphasis added.)
 
They probably had biases, remember, everyone has biases. Sounds like a long shot but could happen. You can not have a handful of states running poor elections affecting the rest of us. You can not have rules made up by people with no authority to do so, decide the election.
 
They probably had biases, remember, everyone has biases. Sounds like a long shot that will never happen. You can not have a handful of states that don’t like the election results in other states trying to overturn the results in those states. You can not have rules made up by people in other states with no authority to do so, overthrow the election in those other states.
 
Has the @camoderator disabled flagging of posts?
 
Last edited:
I still see the flagging UI.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
I don’t see it.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
JButky said:
“Plaintiff State does not ask this Court to decide who won the election; they only ask that the Court enjoin the clear violations of the Electors Clause of the Constitution.”
Click to expand...
No, what Texas seeks is for the Supreme Court to mandate that the defendant states comply with the Constitution, and that means that electors are selected by the states’ legislatures.

Hmmm. What party controlsl the state legislatures in PA, GA, MI and WI?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top