• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

[W: #1427] Seven states join Texas

Paradoxical said:
You just ignore the mounds of evidence in front of your nose.
Click to expand...

What evidence you have been asked many times to provide some.

You have not once been able to provide anything, you keep throwing diaprovenn bullshit around.

If there is so much evidence why has not a shred been presented In court???

Why have trumps dream team of lawyers not once mentioned fraud in court???

The simple answer is clear, you are a liar...
 
Pennsylvania is too nice...

Since Election Day, State and Federal courts throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election. The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an afront to principles of constitutional democracy.

What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts. It attempts to exploit this Court’s sparingly used original jurisdiction to relitigate those matters. But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless, and dangerous. Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections. Nor is that view grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it. The cascading series of compounding defects in Texas’s filings is only underscored by the surreal alternate reality that those filings attempt to construct. That alternate reality includes an absurd statistical analysis positing that the probability of PresidentElect Biden winning the election was “one in a quadrillion.” Bill of Complaint at 6. Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.

 
GolfingChef said:
The evidence that the Justices put on the SCOTUS did not see

The evidence that Fed Judges put on the bench by Trump did not see

The evidence that 50 other courts did not see

The evidence that Trump's DOJ did not see?
Click to expand...
Unlike wing man Holder, Barr is not Trump's DOJ
 
Ikari said:
Did I say Trump filed them? There have been 50 some odd cases on this whole "election fraud" nonsense and they've been tossed. If there were "mounds of evidence", one would think that those cases wouldn't have been tossed for lack of evidence. lol
Click to expand...
Would wolves admit their litter was invading the chicken coop?
 
digitusmedius said:
So, why bother? Just to try to trick The Dirtbag's fascist thugs to keep them from getting death threats?
Click to expand...
Well as mentioned a few posts ago by another, all Ohio is doing is essentially seeking an advisory opinion asking the Court to address the issue of whether it is constitutional for any entity within a state to alter or address the way elections are held/votes counted, or may that only be done by the legislature. The argument is, unless addressed by the court, this issue will keep cropping up.
 
Paradoxical said:
Would wolves admit their litter was invading the chicken coop?
Click to expand...
lol, so 50 some odd courts across different states are all colluding to keep these cases from going anywhere, huh? Is that what you're going to try to claim here?
lol
Such an utterly pathetic argument. Though not unexpected, as pathetic arguments are all the "election was stolen" conspiracy theorists can manage to trump up.
lol
 
BlueTex said:
Pennsylvania is too nice...

Since Election Day, State and Federal courts throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election. The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an afront to principles of constitutional democracy.

What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts. It attempts to exploit this Court’s sparingly used original jurisdiction to relitigate those matters. But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless, and dangerous. Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections. Nor is that view grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it. The cascading series of compounding defects in Texas’s filings is only underscored by the surreal alternate reality that those filings attempt to construct. That alternate reality includes an absurd statistical analysis positing that the probability of PresidentElect Biden winning the election was “one in a quadrillion.” Bill of Complaint at 6. Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.
Click to expand...
What a great introduction to their brief.
Obviously each of their clerks reads these briefs before the justices every do. The clerks should just highlight the intro and tell them they really don't need to read further.
 
Paradoxical said:
How many states now think the SC should overturn the election? Last count was 17, and rumors are it's up to 20. Have you heard anything more on that front?

From Trump's Twitter page posted by someone else...not me. Read it and weep....
Click to expand...

Yeah they're not happy their guy lost, so what?

Where's the evidence of voter fraud? Tossed from court last I heard for lack thereof. You claimed that the fifty lawsuits he lost were 'private' ones not the campaign, or at least some were: show us the evidence, the breakdown. If not fifty then how many did the campaign lose? I asked that number several posts ago and all I've heard is deflection. What's the real number then by your reckoning? 20, 30, 40? Bet it's still not pretty is it?

Trump lost the election. His campaign lost the fight to appeal it in court. Now those friendly red states are going to lose the same fight because it is unwinnable.

Trumpists don't want a fair election - they want to overturn the results. They want a coup and they hope to get it in the courts. They won't. Those conservative appointees to SCOTUS? They're in it to lick corporate boots and stop abortions or whatever the f*** it is they do. They're in it for the long fight: now they have their lifetime seats they can manage without President Chump. They're not going to help his coup when they have so many long term plans they can do without him.

So what's the number of lawsuits the Twump Twain lost? What's in the box?
 
Buckeyes85 said:
Well as mentioned a few posts ago by another, all Ohio is doing is essentially seeking an advisory opinion asking the Court to address the issue of whether it is constitutional for any entity within a state to alter or address the way elections are held/votes counted, or may that only be done by the legislature. The argument is, unless addressed by the court, this issue will keep cropping up.
Click to expand...
I thought that issue was dealt with on Tuesday when the court refused to hear a PA legislator Mike Kelly's filing.
 
prometeus said:
Who gives a ****? The opinions of butt hurs Trump ass kissing morons count for nothing.
Click to expand...
But we do need to pay attention to these traitor wannabes. They can still do a lot of damage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom