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

[roguenuke]

Only if the you I spoke of was Biden himself counting votes. Is that your claim made? That Biden himself counted votes?

Wrong. This is what you said in your post:

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.

That bolded part is the part that implies Biden himself used a copy machine to "create votes", since he is the only one who became our President. It is likely that you just didn't catch your wording, but it is absolutely worded as Biden created the "votes" himself using a copy machine.

 

[calamity]

Then what's your beef?

Der Leader lost

 

[bearpoker]

It avoids having to deal with the issue completely - few have (lifetime) jobs which allow simply opting out of them with full pay and benefits.

You've gone from speculating about their motives to denigrating the work ethic of the Supreme court. How about an actual argument next time?

 

[ttwtt78640]

You've gone from speculating about their motives to denigrating the work ethic of the Supreme court. How about an actual argument next time?

Why was quoting the actual words of the constitution not considered (by you) to be making an actual argument? As I said, the easy way out of making any constitutional interpretation is to simply decline to do so.

 

[bearpoker]

Why was quoting the actual words of the constitution not considered (by you) to be making an actual argument? As I said, the easy way out of making any constitutional interpretation is to simply decline to do so.

Quoting the constitution is an argument. Suggesting that the Supreme Court was shirking their responsibility because they could get away with it is not.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Quoting the constitution is an argument. Suggesting that the Supreme Court was shirking their responsibility because they could get away with it is not.

The current situation is that the SCOTUS refused to hear that argument, thus need not rule on it.

 

[BlueTex]

The current situation is that the SCOTUS refused to hear that argument, thus need not rule on it.

As they should have.... Have you thought of the precedent this would set? Had they accepted the standing of Texas, what would prevent California from suing Texas for it's strict absentee ballot laws?

 

[Rexedgar]

Let us summon him shall we?

He can run but he can’t hide.......

 

[ttwtt78640]

As they should have.... Have you thought of the precedent this would set? Had they accepted the standing of Texas, what would prevent California from suing Texas for it's strict absentee ballot laws?

Nope, so long as the Texas election law was passed by the Texas legislature and signed into law.

 

[OlNate]

As they should have.... Have you thought of the precedent this would set? Had they accepted the standing of Texas, what would prevent California from suing Texas for it's strict absentee ballot laws?

Or their differences in gun control measures - this has been brought up by pundits online. If I understand correctly, the issue was one state suing to interfere in the way another is run. This would set precedent that would extend well beyond election issues.

(Note: Definitely NOT an expert here - this was based off of a commentary I heard after a few celebratory fingers of the good stuff, so I might not even be relaying the information correctly...lol....would love to be corrected, if correction was required, so I don't have to drop this disclaimer next time...hehe)

 

[OlNate]

Nope, so long as the Texas election law was passed by the Texas legislature and signed into law.

Apparently voters in the four challenged states followed their laws, according to this:

Supreme Court denies effort to block election results in 4 key states that sealed Trump's fate

The justices' action clears the way for electors to convene Monday and confirm that President-elect Joe Biden will be nation's 46th president.

www.usatoday.com

What is the distinction you're making? Legitimately asking, trying desperately to understand this decision...might turn into a debate later, but for now just trying to understand what you mean. Sorry if a stupid question, I'm literally on my first sip of coffee...hehe

 

[pinqy]

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?

I think you’re confusing (or news sources are) two different issues: standing, and laches.
for standing, you have to show that, assuming all your factual claims are true, that the matter causes you harm, that the other side is responsible, and that a favorable court ruling will remedy that harm. For the Texas case, the SCOTUS did not accept that Texas, or the voting rights of Texans were harmed by the actions of Pennsylvania etc.

Laches is a delay in bringing an action that unfairly burdens the other party. So in the PA constitution case, we have all these people who voted in good faith by the mail in ballots. To nullify their votes when the issue could have been challenged well before the election is blatantly inequitable.

for the Texas case, both would apply, but standing is the main reason....Texas votes and rights were in no way affected by any actions of Pennsylvania.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Or their differences in gun control measures - this has been brought up by pundits online. If I understand correctly, the issue was one state suing to interfere in the way another is run. This would set precedent that would extend well beyond election issues.

(Note: Definitely NOT an expert here - this was based off of a commentary I heard after a few celebratory fingers of the good stuff, so I might not even be relaying the information correctly...lol....would love to be corrected, if correction was required, so I don't have to drop this disclaimer next time...hehe)

The issue, as I understand it, is objection to a state not having its election laws made (exclusively) by that state’s legislature as required by the US constitution. This is not based on equal protection or a BoR violation.

 

[OlNate]

The issue, as I understand it, is objection to a state not having its election laws made (exclusively) by that state’s legislature as required by the US constitution. This is not based on equal protection or a BoR violation.

Ok, thanks for the perspective, off to Google...might come back, but only if I can bury you, ya filthy libertarian...

 

[BlueTex]

The issue, as I understand it, is objection to a state not having its election laws made (exclusively) by that state’s legislature as required by the US constitution. This is not based on equal protection or a BoR violation.

Did the Texas legislature extend the early voting period in Texas this year?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Did the Texas legislature extend the early voting period in Texas this year?

Covid caused many states, including Texas, to extend early voting periods.

 

[BlueTex]

Covid caused many states, including Texas, to extend early voting periods.

But did the Texas LEGISLATURE pass a law extending the early voting period?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

But did the Texas LEGISLATURE pass a law extending the early voting period?

I believe it was an executive order but I may be wrong.

 

[Vadinho]

How can you say that? He knows more than all his generals, scientists....

His latest intellectual outburst, just this morning...

“Because they waited to find out how many ballots they had to produce in order to steal the Rigged Election,” the president wrote. “They were so far behind that they needed time, & a fake ‘water main break’, to recover!”

 

[BlueTex]

I believe it was an executive order but I may be wrong.

It was.... hmmmmm.......

 

[ttwtt78640]

I think you’re confusing (or news sources are) two different issues: standing, and laches.
for standing, you have to show that, assuming all your factual claims are true, that the matter causes you harm, that the other side is responsible, and that a favorable court ruling will remedy that harm. For the Texas case, the SCOTUS did not accept that Texas, or the voting rights of Texans were harmed by the actions of Pennsylvania etc.

Laches is a delay in bringing an action that unfairly burdens the other party. So in the PA constitution case, we have all these people who voted in good faith by the mail in ballots. To nullify their votes when the issue could have been challenged well before the election is blatantly inequitable.

for the Texas case, both would apply, but standing is the main reason....Texas votes and rights were in no way affected by any actions of Pennsylvania.

There need not be a voting rights issue - the results of the POTUS election (in any “swing state”) definitely have an effect on all states. The issue being raised (challenged?) was state election laws being made (or changed) by means other than by the state’s legislature - as is required by the US constitution.

I agree that not waiting until those law changes took effect, rather than as soon as the (alleged) unconstitutional changes were made to them, would have been preferable, but if nobody out of state has standing to challenge them then that is a moot point.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

It was.... hmmmmm.......

what the Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan legislatures failed to do was pass laws allowing for mail-in ballots and absentee ballots to be counted and tabulated prior to Election Day, instead of delaying the start of counting mail-in and absentee ballots until Election Day or until the polls closed.

 

[BlueTex]

what the Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan legislatures failed to do was pass laws allowing for mail-in ballots and absentee ballots to be counted and tabulated prior to Election Day, instead of delaying the start of counting mail-in and absentee ballots until Election Day or until the polls closed.

Isn't that a question of state law? Has any state court supported the position that these were violations of state law?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Isn't that a question of state law? Has any state court supported the position that these were violations of state law?

Covid caused an increase of mail-in ballots and absentee ballots and it was largely skewed by partisan bias.

there was an political phenomenon called “the red mirage” that is worth looking into.

 

[BlueTex]

Covid caused an increase of mail-in ballots and absentee ballots and it was largely skewed by partisan bias.

there was an political phenomenon called “the red mirage” that is worth looking into.

You are avoiding the question. Who determines whether state law has been violated? Has any court agreed with the position that these actions violated state law?