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

Elements inside the state of Pennsylvania are taking the side of Texas against Pennsylvania, at the Supreme Court.

mobile.twitter.com...

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
EDIT: I just noticed that all the named Defendant states have republican majorities in the state legislatures. So...ah huh...it's all becoming clear to me now.

Agreed. Why would states with clear conservative GOP majorities elected by the people vote for Joe Biden in a presidential election?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
EDIT: I just noticed that all the named Defendant states have republican majorities in the state legislatures. So...ah huh...it's all becoming clear to me now.

Agreed. Why would states with clear conservative GOP majorities elected by the people vote for Joe Biden in a presidential election?

Gerrymandering?

Voters who have increased their awareness since the last General Assembly election?

Any number of reasons.

originally posted by: carewemust
Elements inside the state of Pennsylvania are taking the side of Texas against Pennsylvania, at the Supreme Court.

mobile.twitter.com...

Doesn't the Amici brief say certain lawmakers?

How many?

You don't think it's the same ones that lost on Tuesday (oops) do you?

Real election cheating in the modern era is done by voter suppression. The old days of the political boss giving out votes are over like Kennedy did in 1960 when his old man got his mob buddies to help JFK.

In a small sense, corruption exists where one party has political dominance, states outside of the swing states.

This case is frivolous and will go down in flames like the others.

originally posted by: Willtell
Real election cheating in the modern era is done by voter suppression. The old days of the political boss giving out votes are over like Kennedy did in 1960 when his old man got his mob buddies to help JFK.

In a small sense, corruption exists where one party has political dominance, states outside of the swing states.

This case is frivolous and will go down in flames like the others.

im not sure the case is about "cheating" insomuch as avoidance of the law. Now, i cannot speak to the merits from that perspective....but assuming the allegations are accurate, this is essentially a case about allowing legislation from judicial benches as much as anything else. Which actually IS an issue.

I am of the opinion that Roe v Wade, for example, needs to be addressed legislatively. The court layed out the ground rules. From there it is all up to the legislatures to deal with how those ground rules play out.

I would say if we can correct the "legislating from the bench" issue, we need to then turn attention to using executive orders in place of legislation. We need to stop this wild swing in how people are guided. A good example is ACA. While i am not in favor of it, i would say that the fact that so much of it relied on EO from Obama rather than being included in in the actual law passed through legislation has created not only a black hole, but an enormous amount of confusion and trepidation amongst the populace, who can have no faith in what will and what will not be from administration to administration.

The wheels of government should turn slow for a reason. Quick changes can be undone quickly, to the ruin of us all. In 2021, what will we do about all the income tax that Trumps EO waived for 2020, but will still be due when taxes are paid in 2021?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So, in addressing the alleged dangers of "legislating from the bench" Texas is asking for the biggest act of judicial legislation in history?

Article II states very clearly that the State legislatures chose the slate of Electors.

Each state has existing laws for how the Electors will be chosen.

Those laws have been followed to the letter. States have certified the results of their elections and have chosen their Electors. These laws already exist in each State as establihsed by the legilature in those States.

Texas, however, would like SCOTUS to set aside Article II (1) and let the State Legislatures (of course, only in four states that Trump lost) directly select the Electors.

It's frankly ... I don't know the word. Unfathomable? Ridiculously absurd?

a reply to: Gryphon66

My understanding is that they just want the legislatures to review the changes to the laws and approve them...or not.

Yes, that could mean they go a different route in appointing electors.

But it's fair enough to give them a chance since they have the plenary power.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

My understanding is that they just want the legislatures to review the changes to the laws and approve them...or not.

Yes, that could mean they go a different route in appointing electors.

But it's fair enough to give them a chance since they have the plenary power.

My understanding is that they want the legislatures to selct the slate of Electors.

Complaint

This Court should grant leave to file the complaint and, ultimately, enjoin the use of unlawful election results without review and ratification by the Defendant States’ legislatures and remand to the Defendant States’ respective legislatures to appoint Presidential Electors in a manner consistent with the Electors Clause andpursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2.

Bolding mine.

Yes, the States have plenary power to appoint Electors. They have done so by establishing laws that govern how the Electors are selected and that is by popular vote. Now, the State legislatures could have changed that BEFORE the Election, but to do now would be directiing the legislators to break their own States laws.

Essentially, Texas is asking SCOTUS to overturn Article II Section 1.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Really? Gerrymandering? That old BS accusation?

"voters who have increased their awareness" Gryph, I don't think you fully understand just how deeply divided politics is in the USA right now. Any Republican who voted for Joe Biden shouldn't be calling themselves a Republican or a conservative.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gryphon66

Really? Gerrymandering? That old BS accusation?

"voters who have increased their awareness" Gryph, I don't think you fully understand just how deeply divided politics is in the USA right now. Any Republican who voted for Joe Biden shouldn't be calling themselves a Republican or a conservative.

Do the State legislatures establish the congressional districts in their States?

Are you denying this is done to benefit a political party in several if not all States?

Burd.

Oh, I do understand how divided we are. I would argue that the "Civil War" is well in action and has been for quite some time. I can't help you much with Republican loyalty, with the exception to say, clearly, that Mr. Trump is anything but a classic conservative ... in my opinion.

We are divided, but we have been divided before. We will see if this is the one that will end the Experiment.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So, in addressing the alleged dangers of "legislating from the bench" Texas is asking for the biggest act of judicial legislation in history?

As i understand it, what Texas is alleging is that election rules were enacted via judiciary rather than the legislative body. That is "legislating from the bench". I cannot speak to its validity. Only that separation of powers would, if Texas et al is right, have been trod upon with the judiciary creating law that was not enacted via a legislative body.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So, in addressing the alleged dangers of "legislating from the bench" Texas is asking for the biggest act of judicial legislation in history?

As i understand it, what Texas is alleging is that election rules were enacted via judiciary rather than the legislative body. That is "legislating from the bench". I cannot speak to its validity. Only that separation of powers would, if Texas et al is right, have been trod upon with the judiciary creating law that was not enacted via a legislative body.

We could dig down to greater specifics, but as I understand it ... since you're talking about judicial decisions rather than acts of the executive are you talking about Pennsylvania? The Supreme Court action that the SCOTUS already ruled on earlier in the week?

If so, it seems to me that the question is already answered, yes?

By the way, Governor Abbott in Texas extended the deadline for early voting. Should Texas also have their election invalidated?

There are provisions in precedent , in state law (and federal law) for medical and other emergencies that certain adjustments can be made in light of the nature of the emergency. For example in my state, Georgia, the Secretary of State sent Absentee Ballot Applications for the May 5 primaries in consideration that the Governor had issued a state of medical emergency and a Stay at Home order in order to make it easier for voters to vote.

Why should that invalidate the Primary election? The ballots were still validated as required by law, just as each ballot was validated on November 3, then counted, then recounted and then audited as the law requires.

It boggles the mind, actually.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Sounds to me like it should be heard and a ruling made so everyone is clear on what is and is not.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, but that could mean they say "Yes, we are fine with the changes made. Proceed with the electors, as-is" -- even if TX was successful.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, but that could mean they say "Yes, we are fine with the changes made. Proceed with the electors, as-is" -- even if TX was successful.

Sure. That could happen.

But it would still violate Article II. The law regarding how Electors are chosen was set at the time of the November 3 election.

To change that would be calling on the legislature to transgress State law.

To me, it's a self-defeating argument.

Michigan Georgia Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are all saying that what they did was okay.

mobile.twitter.com...

a reply to: carewemust
Butbutbut the other courts said it was ok.....

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sounds to me like it should be heard and a ruling made so everyone is clear on what is and is not.

I don't think it's that straightforward. If they hear such a case, with zero precedent, then every State can sue every other State for any State's laws as long as they argue that said laws transgress the Fourteenth Amendment.

That seems like madness.

If Georgia et. al. has transgressed the federal Constitution, that should fall to the Department of Justice to investigate, and pending those findings, bring suit.

... and DOJ has weighed in that there is no reason to invalidate any of the 2020 elections.

originally posted by: carewemust
Michigan Georgia Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are all saying that what they did was okay.

mobile.twitter.com...

How surprising.

What your thoughts on their arguments? You link to Twitter ... could you link to the actual Motions you're referring to?