Historical

[Caustic Burno]

I didn’t think it would make it to the court. This will be a historical moment no matter how the SCOTUS rules.
We’re still just as divided either way they rule.
The only I question is the authenticity of the news story, as I currently haven’t found another outlet carrying it.
https://www.breitbart.com/

 

[MurraysMutts]

God blessed Texas...

 

[simme]

I clicked. First time I ever went to the Breitbart website. Does anyone else think that Steve Bannon needs to clean up his physical appearance a little? Not sure if he is still involved there or not. Whenever I see him on TV, I think he should get a haircut, comb his hair and shave. Maybe a new shirt. He always looked like a homeless person to me. I am just a judgmental person I guess.

The Supreme Court has a huge responsibility. They should NEVER be political. But, if there were states that did not follow the law, something needs to happen. So little time, so much at stake, they should never be political.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Must be true as CNBC is carrying it now.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/08/tex...eme-court-over-unlawful-election-results.html

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

I clicked. First time I ever went to the Breitbart website. Does anyone else think that Steve Bannon needs to clean up his physical appearance a little? Not sure if he is still involved there or not. Whenever I see him on TV, I think he should get a haircut, comb his hair and shave. Maybe a new shirt. He always looked like a homeless person to me. I am just a judgmental person I guess.

The Supreme Court has a huge responsibility. They should NEVER be political. But, if there were states that did not follow the law, something needs to happen. So little time, so much at stake, they should never be political.

He might want to consider putting the bottle down as well.

 

[Silver]

He might want to consider putting the bottle down as well.

Reminds me of Michael Moore lol

 

[Caustic Burno]

If this does go to court, I wish they would televise the arguments. I know they won’t but it would fascinating from a historical point no matter the outcome.

 

[hurleyjd]

If this does go to court, I wish they would televise the arguments. I know they won’t but it would fascinating from a historical point no matter the outcome.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-asks-u-supreme-court-152630191.html

 

[sstterry]

I would put odds on them not accepting the case.

There are many reasons that this is ridiculous. The least of which is that Texas has no standing to challenge results in other states. What if California sued to make Texas change it's election results?

Today is the last day for any such challenges. After today, the Federal "Safe Harbor Law" says that Congress must accept the State's Certified Electors. The only State that has not yet certified is Wisconsin because the hearing on one of Trump's lawsuits is not set until Friday. The votes will still count, but they don't have the Safe Harbor protection.

Trump is now 1-49 on his lawsuits. (The one he did win allowed poll watchers to move 2 feet closer to watch).

 

[MurraysMutts]

From reading the first article, its sounds as tho the law is pretty clear on it.
Anymore, who the heck knows!

 

[Caustic Burno]

I would put odds on them not accepting the case.

There are many reasons that this is ridiculous. The least of which is that Texas has no standing to challenge results in other states. What if California sued to make Texas change it's election results?

Today is the last day for any such challenges. After today, the Federal "Safe Harbor Law" says that Congress must accept the State's Certified Electors.

Trump is now 1-49 on his lawsuits. (The one he did win allowed poll watchers to move 2 feet closer to watch).

It actually makes the most sense out of all the arguments I have heard.
All states have to play by the same rules constitutionally.
Again constitutionally states have sued other’s states through the Supreme Court.
I lost all faith in our justice system decades ago with activists judges handing down laws from the bench.
Judge William Wayne Justice started that ball rolling with me.
He was a LBJ appointment that we need to dig up and hang in effigy.

 

[sstterry]

It actually makes the most sense out of all the arguments I have heard.
All states have to play by the same rules constitutionally.
Again constitutionally states have sued other’s states through the Supreme Court.
I lost all faith in our justice system decades ago with activists judges handing down laws from the bench.
Judge William Wayne Justice started that ball rolling with me.
He was a LBJ appointment that we need to dig up and hang in effigy.

Actually, all elections are State Elections. There is technically no such thing as a Federal Election. However, there are tons of laws that regulate State Elections for Federal Office.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Actually, all elections are State Elections. There is technically no such thing as a Federal Election. However, there are tons of laws that regulate State Elections for Federal Office.

I actually wouldn’t care who won if I thought there was an unbiased media and judicial system as watchdogs for the people.
I believe they both are as corrupt as DC and the puppet masters that control them.

 

[sstterry]

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/12/08/george-conway-texas-lawsuit-voter-fraud-lead-vpx.cnn

 

[ccr]

Actually, all elections are State Elections. There is technically no such thing as a Federal Election. However, there are tons of laws that regulate State Elections for Federal Office.

Are you saying that state elections for the president do not have to abide by the Constitution of the United States?

​

 

[SmokinM]

Best I can tell they are not telling a state to change results, they are saying those states changed the rules( which as far as i can find they did) and that changed the results. I am no attorney so can’t say if it will hold up or not but it is an interesting approach. The President is over all states so seems fair if a state doesn’t think what another has done is legal and they would have to suffer those results a suit is justified. At least it seems freedom in this country won’t go quietly.

Anybody who thinks this fight is for Trump they are mistaken, however the other sides fight is most definitely against him as an individual. Biden will not win because he is Biden he will win because he isn’t Trump. Trump won’t lose because of his policies he will lose because of who he is as an individual. I didn’t vote for him because of who he is but because of the old saying ”an enemy of my enemy is my friend” simple as that.

 

[sstterry]

Are you saying that state elections for the president do not have to abide by the Constitution of the United States?

​

No, I am saying that State Elections are State Elections to elect Presidential Electors. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes clear that the Constitution always controls. But, anything not addressed in the Constitution is reserved to the States.

It gets really fuzzy because during the 60's they used the Commerce Clause to stop racism. That discussion is too long to go into here. By the same token, the Citizens United opinion that says Corporations can give money to Political Campaigns is also a huge stretch. Corporations are a "legal fiction" used for expediency.

 

[simme]

Are you saying that state elections for the president do not have to abide by the Constitution of the United States?

​

The US federal government does not run or administer any elections. There are no Federal elections in that sense. There are State controlled/administered elections that include candidates running for federal office (President). These state elections are (should be) subject to the laws of the state where they occur. Each state makes their laws for their election processes including all aspects - registration, voting methods, absentee voting, ID's, filing for running for office, etc. These state laws are implemented by the duly elected state legislators. These rules and procedures can vary from state to state. They DO have to comply with the many Federal laws and the constitution in that they can not be in conflict with those. Otherwise, each state decides how to manage their elections. Some states may decide to have electronic voting, some may allow absentee voting only under specific conditions, some may have early voting for everyone, some may require a witness signature on absentee ballots, etc. Those requirements can be anything the state votes into state law AS LONG AS they are not in conflict with the MANY federal laws and the constitution. I think one issue this year is that some judges issued orders mainly around absentee voting timelines and requirements under the idea that state requirements should be relaxed due to the unusual situation with Covid - supposedly for the health safety of voters and to not discourage voting due to fear of covid. The issue there is that the judicial branch does not have authority to make laws and rules - only to interpret and to apply laws from the legislative branches. If their orders are in conflict with state law, there is a problem.

That's my understanding.

 

[sstterry]

Best I can tell they are not telling a state to change results, they are saying those states changed the rules( which as far as i can find they did) and that changed the results.

You are right, that is part of it. However just yesterday the Supreme Court denied hearing the PA case, which was the last of the State cases. The Court did not rule on anything, they just denied the application which leaves the PA Supreme Court decision as the law. I feel almost positive that they will do the same with the Texas case because the allegations, in that case, are crazy-town. Don't forget that the Texas AG is under indictment (for the second time).

Let me add, that people put too much belief that Judges will bend the rules for political purposes. 99.9% of the time, they will not. The only time political beliefs really come into play are the "hot-button" issues that the Supreme Court hears, ie abortion. Those types of cases are not the norm and you don't hear about the others because they are not big news. Most cases will have different votes of different members of the Court of both the sides based on legal interpertation.

 

[Caustic Burno]

You are right, that is part of it. However just yesterday the Supreme Court denied hearing the PA case, which was the last of the State cases. The Court did not rule on anything, they just denied the application which leaves the PA Supreme Court decision as the law. I feel almost positive that they will do the same with the Texas case because the allegations, in that case, are crazy-town. Don't forget that the Texas AG is under indictment (for the second time).

Let me add, that people put too much belief that Judges will bend the rules for political purposes. 99.9% of the time, they will not. The only time political beliefs really come into play are the "hot-button" issues that the Supreme Court hears, ie abortion. Those types of cases are not the norm and you don't hear about the others because they are not big news. Most cases will have different votes of different members of the Court of both the sides based on legal interpertation.

IMO anyone that doesn’t want it to go to the Supreme Court is an issue for the survival of the republic.This is not about the man, this is about the integrity of our system.
When a large percentage of Americans believe it was rigged you better prove it wasn’t.
Most people I know believed it was rigged and that includes democrats.
Who stands to gain? China? Investment Bankers? Politicians? Lawyers and Judges?
China by controlling our economy and government.
Bankers, Corporations using slave labor from China.
Politicians on the kickbacks through lobbyists from China.
Just caught a presidential candidate Swalwell how many more, we know Fienstiens spy got swept under the rug.
Lawyers judges through Covid litigation that has been the hang up in the stimulus package.
It all ties in with money and China.
Always follow the dollar to find the monster you’re feeding.

This I do believe.
“Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) said that China sees “corporate America as an extension of their own embassy or intelligence services to come lobby the Congress and lobby the administration and lobby governors for pro-China policies.” And warned that “Every elected official in America should be alert to the risk of Chinese meddling.”