GOD BLESS TEXAS!!!!!!

gfm7175 wrote:
Demokkkrats are fugged... ROYALLY fugged......

Numerous other conservative States are either joining in on the lawsuit as we speak or will eventually join in... this is BIG...

Treehouse post about it containing an embedded copy of the lawsuit

GasGuzzler wrote:
It appears Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota will be joining the lawsuit.

This is going to get real. I am optimistic. However, to the ignorant, this will still look like trump used the courts to steal the election.

I saw today that a forensic investigation of 22 Michigan Dominion machines had been ordered today. Anyone heard a time frame when that is expected completed? This would be the ultimate bombshell, IMHO.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
Demokkkrats are fugged... ROYALLY fugged......

Numerous other conservative States are either joining in on the lawsuit as we speak or will eventually join in... this is BIG...

Treehouse post about it containing an embedded copy of the lawsuit

The States, who own the Constitution, will explain to SCOTUS how their republic was harmed by the actions of the rogue states.

.

GasGuzzler wrote:
It appears Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota will be joining the lawsuit.

This is going to get real. I am optimistic.

GasGuzzler wrote:
However, to the ignorant, this will still look like trump used the courts to steal the election.

GasGuzzler wrote:
I saw today that a forensic investigation of 22 Michigan Dominion machines had been ordered today. Anyone heard a time frame when that is expected completed? This would be the ultimate bombshell, IMHO.

IBdaMann wrote:
The States, who own the Constitution, will explain to SCOTUS ...

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
The States, who own the Constitution, will explain to SCOTUS ...

Do you think SCOTUS will take this one?

tmiddles wrote:
Or do you think they will be "required" to ? (again)

tmiddles wrote:
I sure hope they will. It is in everyone's best interest to feel that the process was complete.

gfm7175 wrote:
Btw, SCOTUS did not reject the PA case... that is, once again, fake news purposely glossing over importantly crucial details as part of their psyops against the citizenry.

gfm7175 wrote:
Demokkkrats are fugged... ROYALLY fugged......

Numerous other conservative States are either joining in on the lawsuit as we speak or will eventually join in... this is BIG...

Treehouse post about it containing an embedded copy of the lawsuit

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
Demokkkrats are fugged... ROYALLY fugged......

Numerous other conservative States are either joining in on the lawsuit as we speak or will eventually join in... this is BIG...

Treehouse post about it containing an embedded copy of the lawsuit

So I have a little more information on the Texas lawsuit.

I recommend tempering expectations on the outcome of this lawsuit and mentally separating this lawsuit from efforts to stop the steal of this election. This lawsuit will likely be heard by the US Supreme Court but will likely be limited in scope to procedures for future elections. SCOTUS will not be interfering in any State's sovereign ability to choose its Presidential electors, even if they want to hold sham elections for their own amusement. The States who are parties to the lawsuit will have to narrowly focus their arguments to the harm caused to the country by non-legislative bodies, i.e. Secretaries of State by allowing a political party to usurp/hijack the State legislature's ability to listen to the people of the State.

As such, this might result in screwing the Democrats out of being able to cheat in future elections (which hits them where it hurts because Democrats depend on lying/cheating/stealing to win instead of presenting ideas for issues) but it cannot affect what has already occurred in this election. This election can only serve as an example of what might/will happen every election hereafter if SCOTUS does not provide relief/remedy.

We the People need to focus our efforts on pressuring our State legislatures to stop the steal and to do the right thing by selecting the appropriate electors.

.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
Btw, SCOTUS did not reject the PA case... that is, once again, fake news purposely glossing over importantly crucial details as part of their psyops against the citizenry.

This is fake news?:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7d.pdf

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98
KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

That's the court order directly from SCOTUS.

So how is that "fake news"?

Not fake news:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html
This says that there is a motion by Texas and that the accused states can respond to the motion by 3pm Thursday. So far no indication yet that the court will take the case. As this is state on state action it seems like it would have a better chance. Let's all hope so!

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
Btw, SCOTUS did not reject the PA case... that is, once again, fake news purposely glossing over importantly crucial details as part of their psyops against the citizenry.

This is fake news?:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7d.pdf

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98
KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

That's the court order directly from SCOTUS.

So how is that "fake news"?

Not fake news:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html
This says that there is a motion by Texas and that the accused states can respond to the motion by 3pm Thursday. So far no indication yet that the court will take the case. As this is state on state action it seems like it would have a better chance. Let's all hope so!

James___ wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
Btw, SCOTUS did not reject the PA case... that is, once again, fake news purposely glossing over importantly crucial details as part of their psyops against the citizenry.

This is fake news?:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7d.pdf

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98
KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

That's the court order directly from SCOTUS.

So how is that "fake news"?

Not fake news:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html
This says that there is a motion by Texas and that the accused states can respond to the motion by 3pm Thursday. So far no indication yet that the court will take the case. As this is state on state action it seems like it would have a better chance. Let's all hope so!

I think in reality that a citizen of that stated would need to be aggrieved by the actions of the election board. I think it will be found that Texas cannot challenge another state's laws. This would violate state's rights. Basically speaking it could be seen as Texas trying to define another state's law and forcing it's opinion on that state or states. States have their own Supreme Court for this purpose.
This is just another example of Republicans trying to pervert the law. When they get away with it, we're screwed.

HarveyH55 wrote: But when one state's laws, screw over another state, that's when it becomes a federal issue.

US Constitution: Article III. Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Controversies between two or more States

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
The States, who own the Constitution, will explain to SCOTUS ...

Do you think SCOTUS will take this one? Or do you think they will be "required" to ? (again)

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
Btw, SCOTUS did not reject the PA case... that is, once again, fake news purposely glossing over importantly crucial details as part of their psyops against the citizenry.

This is fake news?:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7d.pdf

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98
KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

That's the court order directly from SCOTUS.

So how is that "fake news"?

tmiddles wrote:
Not fake news:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html
This says that there is a motion by Texas and that the accused states can respond to the motion by 3pm Thursday. So far no indication yet that the court will take the case. As this is state on state action it seems like it would have a better chance. Let's all hope so!

James___ wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
Btw, SCOTUS did not reject the PA case... that is, once again, fake news purposely glossing over importantly crucial details as part of their psyops against the citizenry.

This is fake news?:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7d.pdf

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98
KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

That's the court order directly from SCOTUS.

So how is that "fake news"?

Not fake news:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html
This says that there is a motion by Texas and that the accused states can respond to the motion by 3pm Thursday. So far no indication yet that the court will take the case. As this is state on state action it seems like it would have a better chance. Let's all hope so!

I think in reality that a citizen of that stated would need to be aggrieved by the actions of the election board. I think it will be found that Texas cannot challenge another state's laws.

James___ wrote:
This would violate state's rights.

James___ wrote:
Basically speaking it could be seen as Texas trying to define another state's law and forcing it's opinion on that state or states.

James___ wrote:
States have their own Supreme Court for this purpose.

James___ wrote:
This is just another example of Republicans trying to pervert the law.

James___ wrote:
When they get away with it, we're screwed.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote: But when one state's laws, screw over another state, that's when it becomes a federal issue.

Exactly. That is what the Constitution reads:

US Constitution: Article III. Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Controversies between two or more States

.

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote: But when one state's laws, screw over another state, that's when it becomes a federal issue.

Exactly. That is what the Constitution reads:

US Constitution: Article III. Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Controversies between two or more States

.

Nah, you guys are like the ones in China, Russia, Germany, Italy, etc. that fought for a government take over of a country. As you guys say, it doesn't matter how it happens but Trump should be ruler regardless of what election laws allow for.
Kind of why his cases keep getting dismissed and Trumpsters become more vigalante than citizen.

gfm7175 wrote:...Only injunctive relief was denied.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:...Only injunctive relief was denied.

So you believe this case is still pending before the Supreme Court?

tmiddles wrote:
My understanding is that it was an application for injunctive relief and they passed.

IBD was apparently in the room though so maybe he can fill us in.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:...Only injunctive relief was denied.

So you believe this case is still pending before the Supreme Court?

My understanding is that it was an application for injunctive relief and they passed.

IBD was apparently in the room though so maybe he can fill us in.

On 11-21-2020 GasGuzzler wrote:

I'm an outsider on this one.

I don't have much faith in the courts. Judges are human and the LAST thing they want is to be seen as is picking a president. They know Antifa and BLM will burn and loot every American city. Without mayors and governors willing to squash it, innocent people will die.

I have no doubt there was a lot of voting BS that went on. However, as someone else pointed out, time is the biggest hurdle. Unless the evidence is irrefutable, I don't think the supreme court is going near it.

Full investigation and finding that kind of evidence in a couple weeks time seems unlikely to me, but I'm not giving up.

gfm7175 wrote:
Update: SCOTUS refuses to hear the case on the account that Texas does not have standing. Alito and Thomas dissented.

Looks like the State Legislatures is where it is at. Otherwise, say hello to the CCPUSA... but it sounds like the WI Supreme Court is taking up the Trump case in the State...

GasGuzzler wrote:This is one time in my life that I hate being right. :

gfm7175 wrote:
Update: SCOTUS refuses to hear the case ...

Into the Night wrote:
The court has not rejected the case. The only thing denied was the emergency relief request. The case is still pending in the Supreme Court.

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have no doubt there was a lot of voting BS ... finding that kind of evidence in a couple weeks time seems unlikely to me, ...

tmiddles wrote:It would seem this is not possible. It has been insisted on here SCOTUS is required to hear the case.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:It would seem this is not possible. It has been insisted on here SCOTUS is required to hear the case.

Which they did.

Either you are being dishonest or you are a moron, but when a court renders a decision such as "denied" then they have "heard" the case, consideration was given and a decision rendered. There is no decision if they haven't heard the case.

So which is it? "Dishonest" or "Moron"?


Note: All of the cases still exist with the Supreme Court and can be modified or used to support any future case.

.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:It would seem this is not possible. It has been insisted on here SCOTUS is required to hear the case.

Which they did.

IBdaMann wrote:
...when a court renders a decision such as "denied" then they have "heard" the case, consideration was given and a decision rendered.

Into the Night wrote:
The supreme court is REQUIRED to take up this case.

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:This is one time in my life that I hate being right. :

To be honest, this is the correct decision. The Supreme Court has no ability to provide any sort of relief in this case. There is nothing they can do.

IBdaMann wrote:
This is entirely a matter for the State legislatures and there is still time for each State to do the right thing.

IBdaMann wrote:
I like Into the Night's wording, that any Presidential election in any State is merely a suggestion/recommendation by the residents of a State to their State legislature as to which electors to send, but only State legislatures have ever had the final say on the chosen electors.

IBdaMann wrote:
It might be the case that State legislators were paid off NOT do the right thing and to look the other way. If so, the Presidency will have been bought and forthwith paid.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
Update: SCOTUS refuses to hear the case ...

It would seem this is not possible. It has been insisted on here SCOTUS is required to hear the case. Check with ITN there must be an error in reality.

Never fear ITN insists the prior case is still pending:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The court has not rejected the case. The only thing denied was the emergency relief request. The case is still pending in the Supreme Court.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20a98.html
So we'll keep checking on that.

How do you guys "know" things? Fascinating, the mind of madness.

tmiddles wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have no doubt there was a lot of voting BS ... finding that kind of evidence in a couple weeks time seems unlikely to me, ...

Now I take issue with your recipe there GG.

I suggest:
Step 1: Evidence

tmiddles wrote:
Step 2: Confidence

If you're confident before the evidence you're lost.

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:It would seem this is not possible. It has been insisted on here SCOTUS is required to hear the case.

Which they did.

Either you are being dishonest or you are a moron, but when a court renders a decision such as "denied" then they have "heard" the case, consideration was given and a decision rendered. There is no decision if they haven't heard the case.

So which is it? "Dishonest" or "Moron"?


Note: All of the cases still exist with the Supreme Court and can be modified or used to support any future case.

.

The SCOTUS did not hear the case.

James___ wrote:
They simply denied it based on it violating the Constitution.

James___ wrote:
It was like I said, Texas has no right to tell another state how to hold its election(s).

James___ wrote:
The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf

James___ wrote:
Yep, leave it to Republicans to try to define what the Constitution states for their own wants. Simply put, judicially cognizable interest.

James___ wrote:
What those last 3 words means is that Texas doesn't have the authority to determine if how other states holds their elections is a violation of that state's law or laws. That's for the respective state courts and then federal court if they choose to hear the appeal to decide.

James___ wrote:
As to IBDM saying;

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:It would seem this is not possible. It has been insisted on here SCOTUS is required to hear the case.

Which they did.

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.


What this last part allowed for was it gave SCOTUS the opportunity to say that the state of Texas actions were not allowed by the Constitution.

James___ wrote:
Then in the future when the Republican party tries to employ similar tactics, a decision has been rendered on those tactics as being unconstitutional.

James___ wrote:
And as anyone can read, except for the issue of what Texas was doing was unconstitutional, nothing else was considered.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
...when a court renders a decision such as "denied" then they have "heard" the case, consideration was given and a decision rendered.

Ah your favorite refuge IBD: Vocabulary fantasy camp.

Oh so the court unanimously rejected both cases on the merits so far huh?

Wow that's even worse for Trump.

Into the Night wrote:
The supreme court is REQUIRED to take up this case.

So by "hear" or "take up" the case you're all including rejecting hearing the case.

Well you'll need to work on your understanding of the law. To "hear", to "take up" a case means the court has actually considered the argument made in the case and not simply if they will hear it.

SCOTUS "hears" about 150 out of 7000 cases. That means ~6850 are denied just as Trumps cases have been.

ITN is simply crazy and:https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20a98.html

Is not pending. Its one of the ~6850 cases to be refused by the court. Along with the Texas case it will not be "taken up" or "heard" by the court.

But whats nice about this topic is we are dealing with human action. There can be no excuse for using vocabulary differently than Scotus itself.

" The Supreme Court receives about 10,000 petitions a year. The Justices use the "Rule of Four" to decide if they will take the case. If four of the nine Justices feel the case has value, they will issue a writ of certiorari. "
https://judiciallearningcenter.org/the-us-supreme-court/

Guess what? They didn't "take" either case.

James___ wrote:
This is a good one. Even with what Pennsylvania said, is it treasonous for government officials to try and overthrow an election? It can be considered as an act of rebellion against the US when false claims are pursued because a party chooses not to accept certified election results or a state court's decision.
And representatives should abide by the constitution instead of saying their candidate should be president.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/bill-pascrell-house-lawmaker-traitors-texas-lawsuit-023004107.html

IBdaMann wrote:So which is it? "Dishonest" or "Moron"?

tmiddles wrote:Ah your favorite refuge IBD: Vocabulary fantasy camp.

tmiddles wrote:Oh so the court unanimously rejected both cases on the merits so far huh?

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:
This is a good one. Even with what Pennsylvania said, is it treasonous for government officials to try and overthrow an election? It can be considered as an act of rebellion against the US when false claims are pursued because a party chooses not to accept certified election results or a state court's decision.
And representatives should abide by the constitution instead of saying their candidate should be president.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/bill-pascrell-house-lawmaker-traitors-texas-lawsuit-023004107.html

So, questioning the results is an act of treason? A lot of questionable things happened this year. If you believe there is an issue, you take it to court. That's what this country was founded on. The courts are available to everyone, to resolve disputes. Just because the left, and the media, claim victory, doesn't mean we all have to blindly accept. Why even hold elections, if you are going to faithfully accept everything your masters tell you, without question?

The disputes will serve another purpose, even if they fail in court, there will be changes made, to ensure nothing like this happens next election. Nobody wants to have to fight out every election in court, and some strong arguments were made. Some only failed, because they weren't worded, or presented properly, evidence not presented properly. There was a lot of weird stuff going on during this election, and ballot counting, but ho to present it to the courts, as required, and present it to illustrate why it's supports our case, is difficult. Unusual, doesn't make it blatantly illegal, or you'd be posting from a jail cell...