Texas to the rescue of our 2nd Amendment rights

[parabelum]

I really hope and pray that I’m wrong, but I don’t see SCOTUS taking this or any cases apparently related to the fraud and abuse of the election system because they threw out the PA case. Even more troubling, not ONE justice has written a dissent. Not one of them, even the ones we think of staunch conservatives. Very troubling. They don’t want to get near any of it.

Hannidy and o’Riley, both seem to think SCOTUS will pass.
O’Riley wants a special prosecutor appointed by Barr to investigate the election.

I sure hope that will be the case.

[Paladin]

I really hope and pray that I’m wrong, but I don’t see SCOTUS taking this or any cases apparently related to the fraud and abuse of the election system because they threw out the PA case. Even more troubling, not ONE justice has written a dissent. Not one of them, even the ones we think of staunch conservatives. Very troubling. They don’t want to get near any of it.

Hannidy and o’Riley, both seem to think SCOTUS will pass.
O’Riley wants a special prosecutor appointed by Barr to investigate the election.

A special prosecutor should be appointed, but that will take too long. My assessment is that the SCOTUS is the only chance left for America to continue as we know it.

[philip964]

Breaking:

SCOTUS votes 6.71 to 3.94 against Texas this morning.

[parabelum]

Breaking:

SCOTUS votes 6.71 to 3.94 against Texas this morning.

Huh?

[clarionite]

Breaking:

SCOTUS votes 6.71 to 3.94 against Texas this morning.

Huh?

Did a search and that appears to be 99 44/100 percent untrue. LOL

[parabelum]

Breaking:

SCOTUS votes 6.71 to 3.94 against Texas this morning.

Huh?

Did a search and that appears to be 99 44/100 percent untrue. LOL

I didn’t get it.

[Lynyrd]

17 states have now joined the Texas suit.

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/exe-ge ... d/1000782/

[Paladin]

Arizona makes 18 joining Texas!!!

[Pawpaw]

Steven Crowder interviews Ken Paxton:

[Soccerdad1995]

This is potentially very dangerous territory. We have a dispute between 18 states on one side, and a number on the other side (I'm not sure which Dem states are openly supporting the defendant states in this lawsuit) as to who should be the next legitimate President of the United States. I sure hope that SCOTUS decides to take this case, because leaving an open dispute on something of this magnitude would be about as close as we've come to Civil war since the last one we had back in the 1860's.

Imagine if SCOTUS decides not to take this case, and Biden is sworn in as the U.S. President on January 20. Then further imagine that Texas and the other 17 states all refuse to acknowledge Biden as the legitimate U.S. President, citing the unresolved dispute. It's not too hard to see a path where these states refuse to enforce any Federal laws, regulatory actions, and Executive orders that are finalized under his Presidency, since these actions would be illegitimate if his Presidency was really illegitimate. It's not hard to imagine things going downhill fast at that point.

[srothstein]

This is potentially very dangerous territory. We have a dispute between 18 states on one side, and a number on the other side (I'm not sure which Dem states are openly supporting the defendant states in this lawsuit) as to who should be the next legitimate President of the United States. I sure hope that SCOTUS decides to take this case, because leaving an open dispute on something of this magnitude would be about as close as we've come to Civil war since the last one we had back in the 1860's.

Two very important points to consider and keep in mind, especially when talking about this case. The first is that no one is asking the SCOTUS to decide who is the next president. Nothing in this court case will decide that. What is being asked and the court will decide is if people other than the legislature itself may make decisions that affect the electors appointed. If the court agrees with the premise, all that will happen is the four state legislatures will have to vote on who gets appointed as electors. They may appoint the same people that are currently appointed. They may appoint a new slate dedicated to President Trump. They may pick 62 people with NO preconceived dedication to vote. If they are one of the states where the electors are bound by law to vote for whoever won the popular vote in that state, I have no idea what will happen and the exact wording of the court decision may be critical. But SCOTUS will not determine who won the election.

Second is the question of whether SCOTUS can even refuse the case. This is a very unusual case where SCOTUS is the court of original jurisdiction. While acting as an appeals court, SCOTUS may decline to hear a case. But I am not sure they have that authority when acting as the original court. One of the overriding principles of our government is that everyone has the right to a fair trial in court (as the saying goes, even a dog can get his day in court). If they are the original jurisdiction and have the authority to turn down a case, how do the parties in the case get their day in court? There is no further appeals court they can turn to and ask for it there. There is a strong argument (IMO) based on this logic, that SCOTUS has no choice but to hear this case.

[philip964]

Imagine if they don’t take it and Biden serves a few months then resigns in disgrace after his crimes come out and socialist Kamala try’s to executive action all kinds of socialist gun grabbing stuff with a cloud of election fraud and more hard fraud being discovered every day.

With more than half the country blaming SCOTUS everyday.

And it’s not like Trump isn’t going to run in 2024 starting Feb 1st 2021.
With Trump putting the blame squarely on SCOTUS sholders.

Then Trump and family are arrested and jailed over something.

This could go South real fast in Minecraft.

[philip964]

This is potentially very dangerous territory. We have a dispute between 18 states on one side, and a number on the other side (I'm not sure which Dem states are openly supporting the defendant states in this lawsuit) as to who should be the next legitimate President of the United States. I sure hope that SCOTUS decides to take this case, because leaving an open dispute on something of this magnitude would be about as close as we've come to Civil war since the last one we had back in the 1860's.

Two very important points to consider and keep in mind, especially when talking about this case. The first is that no one is asking the SCOTUS to decide who is the next president. Nothing in this court case will decide that. What is being asked and the court will decide is if people other than the legislature itself may make decisions that affect the electors appointed. If the court agrees with the premise, all that will happen is the four state legislatures will have to vote on who gets appointed as electors. They may appoint the same people that are currently appointed. They may appoint a new slate dedicated to President Trump. They may pick 62 people with NO preconceived dedication to vote. If they are one of the states where the electors are bound by law to vote for whoever won the popular vote in that state, I have no idea what will happen and the exact wording of the court decision may be critical. But SCOTUS will not determine who won the election.

Second is the question of whether SCOTUS can even refuse the case. This is a very unusual case where SCOTUS is the court of original jurisdiction. While acting as an appeals court, SCOTUS may decline to hear a case. But I am not sure they have that authority when acting as the original court. One of the overriding principles of our government is that everyone has the right to a fair trial in court (as the saying goes, even a dog can get his day in court). If they are the original jurisdiction and have the authority to turn down a case, how do the parties in the case get their day in court? There is no further appeals court they can turn to and ask for it there. There is a strong argument (IMO) based on this logic, that SCOTUS has no choice but to hear this case.

[Lynyrd]

Second is the question of whether SCOTUS can even refuse the case. This is a very unusual case where SCOTUS is the court of original jurisdiction. While acting as an appeals court, SCOTUS may decline to hear a case. But I am not sure they have that authority when acting as the original court. One of the overriding principles of our government is that everyone has the right to a fair trial in court (as the saying goes, even a dog can get his day in court). If they are the original jurisdiction and have the authority to turn down a case, how do the parties in the case get their day in court? There is no further appeals court they can turn to and ask for it there. There is a strong argument (IMO) based on this logic, that SCOTUS has no choice but to hear this case.

IANAL but your logic seems sound to me. I TRULY hope SCOTUS takes this case. It could be a great deterrent to future election fraud. I fear America may never have another honest election. But this case just might change things.

[Soccerdad1995]

Takes 270 to win, not half of the electoral total certified. Take away enough the put Biden below 270 and the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state votes as a unit. Slight Republican advantage.

I guess that will be the next SCOTUS case, how to interpret this clause of the Constitution:

The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed;

The way I read that is that if a state does not appoint electors, then it no longer takes 270, just a majority of how many get appointed. I can agree it takes 270 of the electors appointed, if all states appoint the electors. The questions becomes what happens if a state, say Pennsylvania, gets the appointment thrown out by the court and the legislature does not make another appointment of electors.

Apparent if things get really discombobulated the US House selects the President.


This initial post on page 1 really lifted my spirits, as with Rudy being sick and Linn and Sidney getting shot down by the courts and with safe harbor passing, I was afraid it was going to end in a big nothing burger. This doesnot rely solely on fraud but constitutional law, to me it is a winner if SCOTUS takes it. I really hope Roberts doesn’t vote with the other side.

Per the Fox news article, the states in question have already "selected" their electors, and the suit is seeking to prevent those electors from voting, not prevent them from being appointed. So if "selected" in this article means "appointed" then it would still take 270 to win.