The Supreme Court has denied Texas' last-ditch effort to overturn the election results in four battleground states that voted for Joe Biden.

[W_Heisenberg]

if I did you would pretend it didn't happen just like how you pretend nothing is real that you don't like.

Don’t do it for him. Do it for the hundreds of millions of Americans who would benefit from your insightful analysis. The future of our country is at stake! You could settle the issue for the entire county right now!

 

[CLAX1911]

Don’t do it for him. Do it for the hundreds of millions of Americans who would benefit from your insightful analysis.

Doubt DP gets that many visitors.

The future of our country is at stake! You could settle the issue for the entire county right now!

Likely not.

 

[vegas giants]

Doubt DP gets that many visitors.
Likely not.

You lost. Get over it

 

[ttwtt78640]

No...they decided that TX had no standing to bring that suit. Read what you quoted again. It doesnt say what you wrote.

And again, multiple Const legal scholars, including conservative ones, discussed why and some precedents. Had nothing to do with 'remedying' the outcome...had to do with states infringing on other state's rights.

That was my initial point - the SCOTUS has decided that the constitutional requirement that only state legislatures may make election laws, rules and procedures is not enforceable.

 

[Lursa]

Why?

Incessant need to post responses

 

[Lursa]

Rigged elections are rigged.

Incessant need to post responses

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Oh yeah because people said things riots causing millions in damages and say least 30 lives is all aokay.

You want so desperately for us to be half as bad as you.

Can’t get much worse than trying to overturn democracy and committing sedition.

 

[Lursa]

That was my initial point - the SCOTUS has decided that the constitutional requirement that only state legislatures may make election laws, rules and procedures is not enforceable.

No they didnt. They implied, by denying TX lack of standing, that other states cant decide or challenge that for other states. Based on Const law and precedent that has been described elsewhere.

 

[Lursa]

Incessant need to post responses

Incessant need to post responses

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Doubt DP gets that many visitors.
Likely not.

email the newspapers all your “evidence” and then post a link to the articles they would certainly publish.

if what you say is true then your argument could turn the tide!

I would hurry though. Electoral college votes tomorrow.

 

[roguenuke]

The votes I speak of were done by poll workers, not other voters.

That you have no real evidence for and only make such claims out of partisanship and hatred for Dems.

 

[roguenuke]

We will never see Biden command the audiences that Trump commands.

The crowd he got from winning far outnumbered any of Trump's combined. That is what counts.

 

[roguenuke]

Obama nor Biden lifted us out of a recession. And you seem to forget on purpose all of the myriad of Obama failures.

You live in your own little version of reality, don't you?

 

[roguenuke]

Biden is definitely a huge mistake. As to the election, if you can use a copy machine to create votes, you can be our president. Biden was appointed that way.

So now you seem to be saying that Biden himself committed fraud by "copying" votes and submitting them. Because that is how this post reads.

 

[RAMOSS]

if I did you would pretend it didn't happen just like how you pretend nothing is real that you don't like.

I see you are unable to provide an example, but instead used diversionary tactics as an excuse about WHY you can't provide an example. The reason is, the examples are examples of the Trump team giving propaganda to the ignorant and the naive, who just can't believe ANYBODY would oppose their leader.

 

[RAMOSS]

if it was a fact you could prove it just claiming something you want to be true is a fact doesn't make it so.

Now, apply that statement to your claims. See if any of your claims passes the 'smell test', that test being 'Did the people making the claim (I.e. the trump legal team) feel confident enough to present it in court'. Have you bothered taking the claim, and then going down the rabbit whole and examining 'is this claim rational and reasonable?'. Part of that examination should be 'Did they put that evidence in court'.

 

[roguenuke]

He has already been making them. But Trump was attacked long ahead of any so called mistakes.

Here is a good example of the snotty CNN Jim Acosta pulling no punches.

Trump has been making mistakes since long before he ran for President. He has also shown people his true selfish, narcissistic, ego centric, toddler acting side long before he ran for President as well. Some chose to ignore it because he was running against the queen of the evil Dems (in their eyes) and he was willing to openly call Dems names (which appeals to those of low intellect).

 

[roguenuke]

How is one able to gain ‘standing’ (show that they were in some way harmed) before a law, rule or procedure is actually put to use?

It's called a "facial challenge". If someone passed a law that said gays could be killed on sight, does the law have to be put to use in order for someone to challenge it as unconstitutional?

Facial challenge - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ttwtt78640]

No they didnt. They implied, by denying TX lack of standing, that other states cant decide or challenge that for other states. Based on Const law and precedent that has been described elsewhere.

Meaning that no matter what the constitution says about how election laws, rules or procedures may be established that the SCOTUS does not care to enforce it. Since everyone is potentially affected by who wins federal elections it would seem that anyone would have ‘standing’ to insist that only state legislatures (or congress) can dictate the time place and manner for casting votes in federal office elections since that is explicitly stated in the US constitution.

 

[roguenuke]

Changing the received by date, post mark or signature match requirements for accepting mail-in ballots are not minor issues (changes).

Do you believe that simply sending out requests for mail in ballots to most registered voters was not a minor change?

Now, personally, I actually do believe most of those things were minor changes because I don't think any of those changes would actually result in significant voter fraud.

 

[roguenuke]

That was my initial point - the SCOTUS has decided that the constitutional requirement that only state legislatures may make election laws, rules and procedures is not enforceable.

That's actually not what the Constitution states. It only states that state legislatures are responsible for choosing electors, not for implementing each and every election law.

This is known as "interpretation".

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's called a "facial challenge". If someone passed a law that said gays could be killed on sight, does the law have to be put to use in order for someone to challenge it as unconstitutional?

Facial challenge - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, otherwise who has standing?

It's called a "facial challenge". If someone passed a law that said gays could be killed on sight, does the law have to be put to use in order for someone to challenge it as unconstitutional?

Facial challenge - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The problem in this case is that the (only?) logical remedy for an unconstitutional state election law change (ones not made by the state‘s legislature as required by the US constitution) would be to invalidate any election held under those Illegal terms.

 

[rahl]

That was my initial point - the SCOTUS has decided that the constitutional requirement that only state legislatures may make election laws, rules and procedures is not enforceable.

except they've made no such decision. TX did not have standing to sue. The SCOTUS did not rule on the issue, but pointed out they don't have jurisdiction to hear the case, and TX does not have standing.

 

[sailboat]

Why would he care about Georgia's election if he is just planning on running all the Democrats out, rounding them up, defeating them all? You realize you make absolutely no sense here, right?

Use some logic

There is a reason can you guess that reason ?

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's actually not what the Constitution states. It only states that state legislatures are responsible for choosing electors, not for implementing each and every election law.

This is known as "interpretation".

If the assignment of electors is based on having a plurality of the popular vote within that state then that is, in fact, part of that choosing process. The same state election process was also used to elect congress critters for that state and the constitution requires that the only the state legislature (or congress) may set those election standards.