Over 1/3 of US States Were in Legal Support of and with Texas In SCOTUS Lawsuit

[The Ant]

Please excuse my spelling, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I MEANT. EVERYBODY DID. We're talking voter fraud and election results, not some obscene, perverse, TOTALLY NON-CHRISTIAN scene.

Hey, you’re the one focusing on “POLE workers”!

But, I see there has been a reminder to stay with the topic, so:

That 1/3 of state AGs decided to throw their lot in with Texas should be a matter of shame for the US, not pride.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yet, while we have had a minuscule, totally insignificant percentage, according to your point, of gays or this or that in our society, such a small percentage has an extremely powerful impact through government; large enough to change our bill of rights. This counters your point.

The bill of rights could only be changed by passing an amendment to repeal or change part of it. That would require 3/4 of the states to agree. (A number that is not only larger than 1/3, but larger than the 2/3 of the states where the AGs didn't join this monumentally stupid and anti-American lawsuit.)

 

[Monksailor]

Supreme Court did NOT hand back the TX lawsuit on the grounds that it lacked merit. It was a procedural aspect of the lawsuit. TX was informed my the SCOTUS that it would have accepted the lawsuit and will, just as it did President Trump's, if it is processed appropriately. See:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=243468093804603

 

[mala]

It wasn't news till it was over. It WAS news for the biased main-stream media and its cohorts after it was sent back. After Michigan's forensic studies of its election process it has locked up its findings, hmmm? Our great and honorable President Trump's team hasn't counted on the Texas suit, and had continued their investigations into voter fraud. Forensic exams have been done on some MI machines now. MI has blocked the release of the results. Still more fraud info being discovered in other key states. Hundreds of pole workers have come forward with sworn testimonies (under penalty of purgery if lying) of the cheating. The President Trump team still say that they have 6 avenues they can take yet.
Link for article of 19 States total involved with TX initiative: UPDATE: 18 States Join Texas In General Election Supreme Court Lawsuit Against 4 Swing States

so you are in favour of majority number rule i guess by this argument and then we can do away with the stupidity that is the electoral college.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Supreme Court did NOT hand back the TX lawsuit on the grounds that it lacked merit. It was a procedural aspect of the lawsuit. TX was informed my the SCOTUS that it would have accepted the lawsuit and will, just as it did President Trump's, if it is processed appropriately. See:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=243468093804603

No, it was rejected because it had no merit. To have merit Texas would have to have standing and 7 out of 9 justices agreed that Texas had no standing. Of the two remaining both said that there was no way that they would disenfranchise the four states being sued. In other words Texas' case had no legs even according to the ones that would have heard it.

Oh my, just listened to a bit of the video. When one thinks that the Texas lawsuit was a brilliant move one is clearly not dealing with someone that graduated in the top of his class. Or even in the top half of his class.

 

[trunks2k]

Supreme Court did NOT hand back the TX lawsuit on the grounds that it lacked merit. It was a procedural aspect of the lawsuit.

The Scotus denied the suit because TX lacked standing. The two (very conservative) justices who dissented pointed out that even though they thought they should have heard the case (because they think they HAVE to), they would not have ruled in TXs favor. If those two say they would not have granted what TX wanted, the case has zero chance.

TX was informed my the SCOTUS that it would have accepted the lawsuit and will, just as it did President Trump's, if it is processed appropriately.

no, no it didn't. There's no magical legal words or theory here that suddenly gets the Scotus to hear this, let alone rule in Trump's favor.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Then why even enter this thread??? If you already know move on. What is the reason to come then: to harass someone you don't agree with?

I like pointing out when people are wrong.

 

[keith99]

Then why even enter this thread??? If you already know move on. What is the reason to come then: to harass someone you don't agree with?

To not allow lies to go unanswered.

Just because Trump says something does not make it true. In fact the opposite is much closer to teh truth.

 

[SimplyMe]

Supreme Court did NOT hand back the TX lawsuit on the grounds that it lacked merit. It was a procedural aspect of the lawsuit. TX was informed my the SCOTUS that it would have accepted the lawsuit and will, just as it did President Trump's, if it is processed appropriately. See:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=243468093804603

The key thing he says, and I should have stopped watching after he said it (since he just kept repeating the same inane claims) is that, "I am not a lawyer." Of course, he didn't need to say that because he didn't understand what he was talking about.

Yes, Texas did not have standing and the case was booted for that reason. At the same time, and this is his first mistake, Alito and Thomas did not say they would hear the case if presented by someone with standing. Alito and Thomas believe that "original jurisdiction" cases brought before the Supreme Court must be heard, period. So, they voted to hear the case. However, the key is in the next part of the sentence, they stated, "I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue." Basically, they would grant Texas the motion to hear the case (not some other party) but they would not grant Texas the relief they sought; they would not have set aside or delayed the election results in those states.

I thought it was funny that he claimed that Trump made 8 steps forward last week -- I guess he's considering the losses Trump suffered in court as "wins" since they are a step closer to the Supreme Court? In any case, the other thing he misses, the Supreme Court does not "hear" cases in the sense he things. For example, the Lin Wood case he goes on about, the Supreme Court will not listen to his evidence -- they'll see what basis Wood is appealing and rule if a mistake was made in the original courts ruling. If they find a mistake, they likely then send it back to the original court to have the case heard (since the original court dismissed the case without holding evidentiary hearings). They aren't going to overturn the election based on a case that was dismissed by the original court.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

If you already know move on. What is the reason to come then: to harass someone you don't agree with?

Yes.

Find and use the ignore feature—liberally and with glee—and everything will be right as rain. Trust me on this.

 

[Nithavela]

nvmd

 

[Nithavela]

You guys are doing just can be expected of those who have been sabotaging our great and honorable President Trump all along; detract from the truth, evade the truth, redirect. What is the TOPIC of this THREAD?
Over 1/3 of US States Were in Legal Support of and with Texas In SCOTUS Lawsuit

How do you respond?

I respond with saying that apparently they were in legal support of a suit with no standing.

 

[Nithavela]

I like pointing out when people are wrong.

Boy, have you come to the right place.

 

[Nithavela]

Yes.

Find and use the ignore feature—liberally and with glee—and everything will be right as rain. Trust me on this.

Life is so much easier when you no longer hear dissenting voices.

 

[lasthero]

Yes.

Find and use the ignore feature—liberally and with glee—and everything will be right as rain. Trust me on this.

When you ignore all the people who say things you don’t like, it’s like everyone agrees with you!

 

[Tanj]

When you ignore all the people who say things you don’t like, it’s like everyone agrees with you!

Interestingly saw a post on parler where someone was complaining that there was noone to argue with, no discussion, just everyone posting their own stuff and everyone paying it no attention.

 

[KCfromNC]

The President Trump team still say that they have 6 avenues they can take yet.

Is one of them the avenue that the Four Seasons landscaping company was on?

 

[KCfromNC]

Over 1/3 of US States Were in Legal Support of and with Texas In SCOTUS Lawsuit

How do you respond?

First off, by letting them know that Donald lost.

Next, by saying they have every right to be a wrong as they want. Oh well, what are you going to do? Some people just aren't particularly good at dealing with this whole "real world" thing. Best to just let them be and hope they don't do too much harm to themselves or their families.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes, and over half the states opposed Texas' lawsuit, and those states have over half of all Americans living in them.

And generate a disproportionate amount of the nation's GDP. This thread has made me start to wonder if there is a correlation between rejecting reality and lower than average economic output, so thanks for that.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Boy, have you come to the right place.

It’s why I’m still here.