The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court

It is sad that so many of you are just regurgitating the talking points from TV and do NOT say you are not.

It is not about the votes in each state. Never was. That shows the corruption that has occurred. This is all about passing laws that are against the constitution. That is what is being fought.

Some of you in this thread asked for and were shown were this is being discussed in the Constitution. You cannot, even if there is a pandemic, decide to choose to vote different in a Federal Election. Our founders also made it so you can simply bypass those laws in place either. It is as if some of you never took Civics and it shows.

This has been the end game all along. The problem is the amount of time that the administrations lawyers have had and they have created a premise that should change voting laws in all states. A vote should be tied to your SSN. One vote. One Number. Easily crosschecked but Progressives are adamant this is voter suppression. Crazy huh?

If the Progressive Congress was not worried about the election they would not be attacking Trump but making sure that it could not happen again. Instead they want it to continue like this and have the ability to sway local and state elections where these challenges are hard to come by.

Make rules not point fingers....but then again, it is politics.

Good Luck Texas...we need you right now.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'd love to see Texas prove voter and election fraud.

Again, Texas is alleging those states broke their own laws. Not out right voter fraud. From the filing that was posted earlier, that's what I got from it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No States have "broken their own laws" as of yet.

Arizona did. We even had a couple cases taken to the AZ Supreme Court telling election officials to cease and desist and they refused.

Supreme Court bars Fontes from sending mistake instructions to voters

Fontes Ignores Supreme Court Ruling, Advises Voters To Cross Out Errors

It's been alleged that these votes were then either tossed or "cured" by an election work examining the ballot and deciding who/what the voter really meant to vote for.

I know Pennsylvania had similar issues.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

In other cases, however, the Court, centering its attention upon the elements of a case or controversy, has declined jurisdiction. In Alabama v. Arizona,1063 where Alabama sought to enjoin nineteen states from regulating or prohibiting the sale of convict-made goods, the Court went far beyond holding that it had no jurisdiction, and indicated that jurisdiction of suits between states will be exercised only when absolutely necessary, that the equity requirements in a suit between states are more exacting than in a suit between private persons, that the threatened injury to a plaintiff state must be of great magnitude and imminent, and that the burden on the plaintiff state to establish all the elements of a case is greater than the burden generally required by a petitioner seeking an injunction in cases between private parties.

Legal Information Institute - Cornell University.

I'd love to see Texas prove voter and election fraud. No one else has been able to.

What an awesome day? God I hope Breitbart isn't lying through their asses.

I don't think they are trying to prove fraud, are they? Just that those states violated equal protection by arbitrarily changing laws outside the legislature.

originally posted by: matafuchs
It is sad that so many of you are just regurgitating the talking points from TV and do NOT say you are not.

It is not about the votes in each state. Never was. That shows the corruption that has occurred. This is all about passing laws that are against the constitution. That is what is being fought.

Some of you in this thread asked for and were shown were this is being discussed in the Constitution. You cannot, even if there is a pandemic, decide to choose to vote different in a Federal Election. Our founders also made it so you can simply bypass those laws in place either. It is as if some of you never took Civics and it shows.

This has been the end game all along. The problem is the amount of time that the administrations lawyers have had and they have created a premise that should change voting laws in all states. A vote should be tied to your SSN. One vote. One Number. Easily crosschecked but Progressives are adamant this is voter suppression. Crazy huh?

If the Progressive Congress was not worried about the election they would not be attacking Trump but making sure that it could not happen again. Instead they want it to continue like this and have the ability to sway local and state elections where these challenges are hard to come by.

Make rules not point fingers....but then again, it is politics.

Good Luck Texas...we need you right now.

I'm not regurgitating anything from TV, I've stated the findings of courts in multiple states, Trump's DOJ, Trump's Homeland Security ...

Nice try though.

a reply to: LanceCorvette

You are correct.

a reply to: jrod

The Republican Party will be extinct.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Gryphon66

In other cases, however, the Court, centering its attention upon the elements of a case or controversy, has declined jurisdiction. In Alabama v. Arizona,1063 where Alabama sought to enjoin nineteen states from regulating or prohibiting the sale of convict-made goods, the Court went far beyond holding that it had no jurisdiction, and indicated that jurisdiction of suits between states will be exercised only when absolutely necessary, that the equity requirements in a suit between states are more exacting than in a suit between private persons, that the threatened injury to a plaintiff state must be of great magnitude and imminent, and that the burden on the plaintiff state to establish all the elements of a case is greater than the burden generally required by a petitioner seeking an injunction in cases between private parties.

Legal Information Institute - Cornell University.

I'd love to see Texas prove voter and election fraud. No one else has been able to.

What an awesome day? God I hope Breitbart isn't lying through their asses.

I don't think they are trying to prove fraud, are they? Just that those states violated equal protection by arbitrarily changing laws outside the legislature.

Let's talk specifics, eh?

Pennsylvania. The PA Supreme Court made a ruling according to their State Constitution. The US Supreme Court has already upheld the PA Supreme Court's right to do so. Alito acted unilaterally in even acknowledging the additional case filed.

The Equal Protection Clause actually would be in play IF AND ONLY IF Texas can prove that the elections were illegal.

IF Breitbart isn't lying, of course.

a reply to: Boadicea

Your sources state that a prelminary injuction was issued in AZ.

It wasn't against the State of AZ, by the way, it was against an individual and Maricopa Country.

Nonetheless, Fontes and Maricopa County “exceeded their authority” by explicitly instructing voters to cross out their mistakes if they voted for the wrong candidate, the Supreme Court concluded. State law and the state’s election procedures manual, which carries the force of law, instruct county recorders to tell voters to request a new ballot if they make such mistakes.

a reply to: jrod

Seems to me if it was money Trump was worried about he would just sell out to the Chinese like Joe Biden

Donations LOL

Lol
Butbutbut lawguy told everyone it is over....


Lol
Seeing the bamn activly defended by those who ran when it got too hot is so hilarious.


Look it is "break" time.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I keep seeing claim various threads about Trump lawyers saying no fraud,

Can cite lawyer/case and link please.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Gryphon66

I keep seeing claim various threads about Trump lawyers saying no fraud,

Can cite lawyer/case and link please.

Surely, here's some low-hanging fruit from Google.

In a recent Pennsylvania federal case, Giuliani alleged “widespread, nationwide voter fraud” in his opening remarks. But under questioning from the judge, he retreated. “This is not a fraud case,” Giuliani later admitted. In the same case, Trump lawyer Linda Kearns said explicitly that she is “not proceeding” on allegations of fraud.

In a state case concerning votes in Maricopa County, Ariz., Trump lawyers again dodged and weaved. On Nov. 12, the same day that the President himself was tweeting about hundreds of thousands of votes being stolen from him, a Trump campaign attorney Kory Langhofer told a judge, “We are not alleging fraud in this lawsuit. We are not alleging anyone stealing the election.”

Source

It's still early in TX of course, but there is zero coverage on this claim and there is nothing on the Texas Attorney General's website.

Texas Attorney General

KHOU - Houston

KVUE - Austin

Nothing on Fox ...

FOX NEWS

Hmmm ... pretty quiet for such a history-making case, huh?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I still don't see it on the Supreme Court docket.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Gryphon66

I still don't see it on the Supreme Court docket.

If this isn't real, what on Earth was Breitbart thinking?

Can they possiibly be that desperate for clicks?

EDIT: aaand, the story is scrubbed from the Breitbart site.

Search Breitbart "Supreme Court"

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: jrod

The Republican Party will be extinct.

Only if one is racist enough to believe people of a certain race vote one way and only one way.

Given Trump’s gain with blacks, hispanics and asians this time around, this racist assumption appears false. It will be interesting indeed to see if the trend continues.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Here it is on MSN.

Full filing here.

Here's the relief sought:

This Court should first administratively stay or
temporarily restrain the Defendant States from
voting in the electoral college until further order of
this Court and then issue a preliminary injunction or
stay against their doing so until the conclusion of this
case on the merits. Alternatively, the Court should
reach the merits, vacate the Defendant States’ elector
certifications from the unconstitutional 2020 election
results, and remand to the Defendant States’
legislatures pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 to appoint
electors.

That doesn't seem likely to occur.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Gryphon66

I still don't see it on the Supreme Court docket.

I did notice that the link earlier in the thread to the case, the website says "uploaded by: brietbart news"