Was our S.C. delinquent in its duty to adjudicate the Texas 2020 election lawsuit?

[TheCount]

appears to have been

I think you mean that some people said on the internet that he was

 

[tommyrp12]

Thomas thinks it was regarding PA. He thinks there wasn't enough votes to overturn anything, but wants to clear up the SOS's applying "rules" to elections.

"We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections," Thomas wrote in his dissent. "The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us."

 

[dannno]

Thomas thinks it was regarding PA. He thinks there wasn't enough votes to overturn anything, but wants to clear up the SOS's applying "rules" to elections.

Alito and Gorsuch joined in on the dissent, Kavanaugh and Barrett look like fucking traders... or are being threatened

 

[Swordsmyth]

Alito and Gorsuch joined in on the dissent, Kavanaugh and Barrett look like $#@!ing traders... or are being threatened

Traitors either way.

And I doubt they have more than the usual blackmail the cabal requires all its members to give up to assure their loyalty.
Remember that Trump had to pick people who would get through the Senate and McConnell, Gorsuch seems to be an anomaly like Alito and Thomas.

 

[dannno]

Fortunately we still have some cases pending..

 

[TheTexan]

Correction: according to the Constitution the STATE LEGISLATURES select electors in any way they want AS LONG AS THEY DON'T VIOLATE ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

State courts and state executive branches changed how electors were selected and states violated other provision of the Constitution as well.

Yea, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

 

[Anti Globalist]

Fortunately we still have some cases pending..

And the Courts will refuse to hear those cases as well. The Deep State under no circumstances will allow the evidence to be seen. Trump needs to accept the fact that he's trying to do the impossible and just stop trying to overturn the election.

 

[asurfaholic]

And the Courts will refuse to hear those cases as well. The Deep State under no circumstances will allow the evidence to be seen. Trump needs to accept the fact that he's trying to do the impossible and just stop trying to overturn the election.

Is it even about overturning the election anymore? I’d be happy with a couple people thrown in jail and the opportunity for future fraud by way of dominion machines and mail in ballots squashed.

 

[Contumacious]

And the Courts will refuse to hear those cases as well. The Deep State under no circumstances will allow the evidence to be seen. Trump needs to accept the fact that he's trying to do the impossible and just stop trying to overturn the election.

Respectfully disagree

If we were to allow the Military Junta/Leftwing Cabal to get away - again - with stealing an election then stick a fork in our right to vote......is done.


.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Fortunately we still have some cases pending..

https://t.me/SidneyPowell/328

https://t.me/SidneyPowell/330

 

[TheTexan]

https://t.me/SidneyPowell/328

https://t.me/SidneyPowell/330

Release the fundraising Kraken

 

[johnwk]

Texas has standing and a judiciable controversy in its election lawsuit

No, Texas had no standing.

When a number of states disenfranchise the voters of Texas in a federal election by illegal voting practices in those states, you bet the State of Texas has standing and a judiciable controversy with those states, and, the United States Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over such controversies (Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, USC)




See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006)

"Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised. “[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964)."


In addition, our Supreme Court has emphatically pointed out in the past. When acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state “they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain” ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".

And in "McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1 (1892), the Court explained that Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, “convey the broadest power of determination” and “leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method” of appointment. 146 U. S., at 27. A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question."



Also see Bush v. Gore in 2000, citing McPherson v. Blacker: "A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question." In the instant case a "significant departure", e.g., would be Pennsylvania’s passage of ACT 77 by its Legislature which failed to take the prescribed actions to amend the state constitution as needed before implementing it.

Finally, and with respect to the Robert’s Court obvious dereliction of duty to hear the Texas Lawsuit, this dereliction of duty was eloquently summed up in an amicus curiae brief by Citizen’s United:

“When one state allows the Manner in which Presidential Electors be chosen to be determined by anyone other than the state legislature, that state acts in breach of the presuppositions on which the Union is based. Each state is not isolated from the rest—rather, all states are interdependent. Our nation’s operational principle is E pluribus unum. Each state has a duty to other states to abide by this and other reciprocal obligations built into Constitution. While defendant states may view this suit as an infringement of its sovereignty, it is not, as the defendant states surrendered their sovereignty when they agreed to abide by Article II, § 1. Each state depends on other states to adhere to minimum constitutional standards in areas where it ceded its sovereignty to the union—and if those standards are not met, then the responsibility to enforce those standards falls to this Court.”


JWK


When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

When a number of states disenfranchise the voters of Texas in a federal election by illegal voting practices, you bet the State of Texas has standing and a judiciable controversy with those states, and, the United States Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over such controversies (Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, USC)

Texas voters weren't disenfranchised at all. Their votes were counted to determine who Texas's electors would be, which is all they were entitled to.* Just as they have no right to vote for Pennsylvania's electors, they have no right to complain about how PA's electors were chosen.

None of the dicta you cited bears on the issue of Texas's standing. Moreover, the interdependence argument goes too far; it would permit one State to complain about another State's violation of any other constitutional provision, not just that dealing with presidential electors. For example, California could sue Texas alleging that some law on the latter's books violates Due Process, Equal Protection, Freedom of Speech, Press, or Free Exercise of Religion, or the Establishment Clause. Is that really what you want?

* Of course, their votes may not have been properly counted, since Texas Governor Abbott unilaterally opened the absentee voting period early in violation of state law, something pot-calling-the-kettle-black AG Ken Paxton somehow failed to mention in his suit.

 

[johnwk]

Texas in fact has standing and a judiciable controversy in its election lawsuit

Texas voters weren't disenfranchised at all.

Thank you for your personal opinion, but THIS POST supplies the documentation your personal opinion is wrong.


JWK

[h=2]When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to acts contrary to our Federal and state Constitutions, as it has done in this case, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.[/h]

 

[johnwk]

Texas has no business in telling other states how to choose their electors.

But the Constitution, which all States have agreed to, does declare electors are to be appointed in the manner as the State's Legislature may direct . . . not the Court, the people, or Little Bow Peep.


"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." ___ my emphasis.

JWK

When our federal judicial systemignores the rule of law and our written Constitutions, Federal and State, andassents to acts contrary to the rule of law, it not only opens the door toanarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.

 

[TheTexan]

But the Constitution, which all States have agreed to, does declare electors are to be appointed in the manner as the State's Legislature may direct . . . not the Court, the people, or Little Bow Peep.

Sure, and to the extent that the state legislature felt that the courts were not upholding the laws as they were written/intended, it is the responsibility of the legislature to step in and correct it. Which they didn't do. Which is in effect, tacit approval.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

But the Constitution, which all States have agreed to, does declare electors are to be appointed in the manner as the State's Legislature may direct . . . not the Court, the people, or Little Bow Peep.

It's quite clear you know nothing about the law of standing. Neither Texas nor its voters were disenfranchised or otherwise harmed by some other State's conduct of its election, and your continued parroting of dicta from irrelevant cases won't change that fact.

Even if you assume that the PA electoral votes weren't chosen in accordance with the rules set down by its legislature and that this amounts to a violation of the Constitution analogous to a breach of contract, neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated how Texas or its voters were harmed or suffered any damage as a result of this alleged violation, especially in light of the fact that Biden would still have won if all of the mail-in ballots received after the statutory deadline had not been counted.

In essence, you and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch want SCOTUS to render an advisory opinion to govern future elections, not the one just held. But SCOTUS has refused to give advisory opinions ever since President Washington asked it to do so in 1793, and it shouldn't start now.

 

[johnwk]

It's quite clear you know nothing about the law of standing.

What is "clear" is, you simply love to make up crap . . .


With regard to my understanding of "standing" see my following post HERE

JWK

 

[TheCount]

But the Constitution, which all States have agreed to, does declare electors are to be appointed in the manner as the State's Legislature may direct . . . not the Court, the people, or Little Bow Peep.

So why didn't Texas sue Texas?

Or... North Carolina?

 

[enhanced_deficit]

That's way so important to elect well-funded "conservative" politicians who identify as Republicans and ignore 'follow the money'.

For everyone who said we need Trump for a "conservative" SCOTUS....