Supreme Court rejects Texas Case

[f6john]

Where to from here?

[Jersey mike]

Septic tank, port-o-John pumper truck, waste recycling for cleansing and it's like it never happened.

[old2soon]

         In this Country after the Supreme Court could Congress act? I just Knew I should have taken my civics lessons more seriously.   RIDE SAFE.

[Bret SD]

I can't say here what I think   

[Moonshot_1]

From here we go to a Republic that grows Bananas.

I expected this result from the Supreme Court and agree with it.
Not because I favor Biden but simply that it is Constitutional Law.

Constitutionally, it is a State's legislature that determines the respective State's electors.

Even if an Election official or committee decides to change or alter rules in direct violation of the State's Constitution, if the Legislature decides to allow it and support it, it is, by definition, Constitutional.

Even if their State Supreme Court rules that their election was totally bogus, the State's legislature can forgo the Court's decision. Constitutionally, the Courts have no say in the matter of Presidential electors.

Again, this is in specific regards to Presidential electors.

The State legislatures in question failed to uphold their own election laws and allow bogus and fraudulent results.

They can actually do that.

So the Texas et al Lawsuit never had a chance.

The remedy is to vote them out. At least that is one of them.

There are others.

[Chrisj CMA]

Where to from here?

They rejected it on standing not on merits. There are a coimire chances from Pennsylvania and Arizona

[Bret SD]

From here we go to a Republic that grows Bananas.

I expected this result from the Supreme Court and agree with it.
Not because I favor Biden but simply that it is Constitutional Law.

Constitutionally, it is a State's legislature that determines the respective State's electors.

Even if an Election official or committee decides to change or alter rules in direct violation of the State's Constitution, if the Legislature decides to allow it and support it, it is, by definition, Constitutional.

Even if their State Supreme Court rules that their election was totally bogus, the State's legislature can forgo the Court's decision. Constitutionally, the Courts have no say in the matter of Presidential electors.

Again, this is in specific regards to Presidential electors.

The State legislatures in question failed to uphold their own election laws and allow bogus and fraudulent results.

They can actually do that.

So the Texas et al Lawsuit never had a chance.

The remedy is to vote them out. At least that is one of them.

There are others.

The Chinese communist party owns Dominion, so voting them out ain't gonna happen.. that's the whole point of all this, it's way bigger than Trump.. ballot box fail = cartridge box time.

Traitors and foreign actors are behind this coup, 100,000,000 Patriots won't accept  this, and I'm one of them.

[Jess from VA]

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," the Supreme Court's order reads. "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.

This was a predictable move (to avoid having to address the issues on the merits).  But it doesn't take a legal scholar to see that the people of each state have a very compelling interest in ensuring that all states run completely honest elections, when we are talking about a national election for POTUS. After all, it only took 4-5 of 50 states to skew the election.  Does not each citizen, in all the states, have a compelling interest in scrupulously honest national elections?  

SCOTUS is and always has been well aware that their only power is one of persuasion.  They have no standing army or police force of their own to enforce their decisions.  It will take a very high level of proof before they would venture into constitutional crisis territory (which is what the Texas (and others) appeal is clearly seeking to do).  I am not necessarily in agreement with this decision (or policy) but I do understand it.  And plenty has been written on the subject.

We now have tested voting machines with votes run through them, changing the outcome counts on their own, to the enemy.  

[Bret SD]

"We now have tested voting machines with votes run through them, changing the outcome counts on their own, to the enemy."

This is proof enough

If the SC cowards won't allow the case, they've sold out the populations of all the remaining states, a tainted result, no matter the cause or scope, is still tainted.. and tainted doesn't come close to what happened.

Commiefornia is now run by illegitimately 'elected' officials due to Dominion machine use.

Insurrection Act up next?

[Serk]

Texas GOP Chairman Lt. Colonel Allen West (And my neighbor I recently found out) released the following statement, which I 100% support:

"The Supreme Court, in tossing the Texas lawsuit that was joined by seventeen states and 106 US congressman, have decreed that a state can take unconstitutional actions and violate its own election law. Resulting in damaging effects on other states that abide by the law, while the guilty state suffers no consequences. This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable. This decision will have far reaching ramifications for the future of our constitutional republic. Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution."

[Jess from VA]

"We now have tested voting machines with votes run through them, changing the outcome counts on their own, to the enemy."

This is proof enough

If the SC cowards won't allow the case, they've sold out the populations of all the remaining states, a tainted result, no matter the cause or scope, is still tainted.. and tainted doesn't come close to what happened.

Commiefornia is now run by illegitimately 'elected' officials due to Dominion machine use.

Insurrection Act up next?

Bretshim, understand that tainted voting machines was not before the SCOTUS in the TX petition.  It was a constitutional argument. 

[f6john]

It will soon be time to separate the goats from the sheep. Soon being a relative term. There will be a tipping point who can say what will be the last straw. Hopefully there are enough Patriots with enough power in Washington to bring some sanity back into play.

[Jess from VA]

Texas GOP Chairman Lt. Colonel Allen West (And my neighbor I recently found out) released the following statement, which I 100% support:

"The Supreme Court, in tossing the Texas lawsuit that was joined by seventeen states and 106 US congressman, have decreed that a state can take unconstitutional actions and violate its own election law. Resulting in damaging effects on other states that abide by the law, while the guilty state suffers no consequences. This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable. This decision will have far reaching ramifications for the future of our constitutional republic. Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution."

I do too.  That is essentially the same argument I made above.  In a national election, all US citizens should have standing to challenge election fraud or manipulation or lawlessness in any state.

The SCOTUS punt smells remarkably like a Roberts move, but that is only conjecture.  Of course he could not decide alone. 

There was without question some degree of voter fraud (either by machine or humans, or both) in 4 or 5 states.  I think this can be proven.  What I think cannot be proven (in a very short window of time, or maybe ever) is whether it was sufficient (in pure numbers) to have altered the election.  The simple (and fair) solution would to have those states vote again, with whatever level of security and oversight is necessary to insure they are honest.  But as common sense as that is, I have no idea in the world how that could ever be made to happen.

 

[MarkT]

[Oss]

Jess, as usual, I agree that the SCOTUS took the coward's way out as under the 10th since rights are reserved to states it seems to me that states should be able to cry foul

But yes, the states that were poisoned, can each individually and collectively join in suit(s) and therefore the standing issue is gone.

There are many cases still pending. Too bad videos cant be inserted into briefs, but see no reason why pictures could not.

Will it take martial law to round up the criminals?  Sure hope not but it has been done as you know

Also would like to see FCC revoke licenses to operate of the major networks as failing to report news
(let alone lying) or failing to follow the POTUS going on air should be grounds to revoke.  They can editorialize after all they want but what they do to the current POTUS has no precedent
 Love to see those corporations lose billions AND THE BROADCAST RIGHTS reassigned

[The emperor has no clothes]

How far the right has fallen under Trump.  Against the Republic system of State's rights. Trying to usurp the rights of citizens to vote. Exhorting its members to sedition. The conservatives moral high ground to the Constitution is shredded.

[Bret SD]

How far the right has fallen under Trump.  Against the Republic system of State's rights. Trying to usurp the rights of citizens to vote. Exhorting its members to sedition. The conservatives moral high ground to the Constitution is shredded.

Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder..  enablers of communists and cheating traitors lecturing US on moral high ground?.. 

[f6john]

How far the right has fallen under Trump.  Against the Republic system of State's rights. Trying to usurp the rights of citizens to vote. Exhorting its members to sedition. The conservatives moral high ground to the Constitution is shredded.

That wasn't Trumps speech Nancy shredded, it was the Constitution.  If a liberal is pointing a finger, you can be assured they have already committed the transgression.

[Serk]

How far the right has fallen under Trump.  Against the Republic system of State's rights. Trying to usurp the rights of citizens to vote. Exhorting its members to sedition. The conservatives moral high ground to the Constitution is shredded.

[The emperor has no clothes]

How far the right has fallen under Trump.  Against the Republic system of State's rights. Trying to usurp the rights of citizens to vote. Exhorting its members to sedition. The conservatives moral high ground to the Constitution is shredded.

It wasn't meant for you. I gave you my word I would not "trigger" you.

[Jess from VA]

How far the right has fallen under Trump.  Against the Republic system of State's rights. Trying to usurp the rights of citizens to vote. Exhorting its members to sedition. The conservatives moral high ground to the Constitution is shredded.

If there was ever a learning moment on this board, this is it.