(Updates)Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Ru

[Right_in_Virginia]

Supreme Court Flooded with Filings in Texas Challenge to Voting Procedures
https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/12/10/supreme-court-flooded-with-filings-in-texas-challenge-to-voting-procedures/

All Activity on the Texas Lawsuit:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

[Fishrrman]

Bigun posted this excerpt:
Using strong language rarely seen in Supreme Court filings, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro told the justices that they should “not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.”

Strong language it may be, but it fails to address the specific allegations made by Texas in any way.

Is this all they have to offer in rebuttal?

[Elderberry]

Bigun posted this excerpt:
Using strong language rarely seen in Supreme Court filings, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro told the justices that they should “not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.”

Strong language it may be, but it fails to address the specific allegations made by Texas in any way.

Is this all they have to offer in rebuttal?

Links to rebuttals here: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,422131.msg2342619.html#msg2342619

[Right_in_Virginia]

Georgia! 

William Ligon
@SenWilliamLigon

Great news—our amicus brief was filed this evening! A total of 15 senators and 12 representatives participated. Stay strong, and #stopthesteal!


7:19 PM · Dec 10, 2020·Twitter Web App

https://twitter.com/SenWilliamLigon/status/1337190117681876994

Brief filed:   https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163469/20201210202722129_22O155%20Amici%20Brief%20GA%20State%20Sem%20%20Willian%20Ligon%20et%20al.pdf

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Supreme Court Flooded with Filings in Texas Challenge to Voting Procedures
https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/12/10/supreme-court-flooded-with-filings-in-texas-challenge-to-voting-procedures/

Anybody seen a synopsis of this one?

An amici curiae brief filed by the District of Columbia and “States and territories of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Washington” in support of Pennsylvania and the defendant states

Extremely disappointed North Carolina joined in here.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Pinned Tweet
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

(Scavino) Video: 

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337131119632916481

3:24 PM · Dec 10, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

[Elderberry]

Anybody seen a synopsis of this one?

An amici curiae brief filed by the District of Columbia and “States and territories of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Washington” in support of Pennsylvania and the defendant states

Extremely disappointed North Carolina joined in here.

Looks like you'll just have to read it yourself: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163379/20201210144443769_Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Motion%20and%20Br.%20of%20Amici%20DC%20et%20al.pdf

[Right_in_Virginia]

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Tremendous support from all over the Country. All we ask is COURAGE & WISDOM from those that will be making one of the most important decisions in our Country’s history. God bless you!


8:07 PM · Dec 10, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337202242290671617

[mystery-ak]

Michigan AG says Texas 'has no standing to disenfranchise' millions of voters
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/529767-michigan-ag-says-texas-has-no-standing-to-disenfranchise-millions-of

[skeeter]

Looks like you'll just have to read it yourself: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163379/20201210144443769_Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Motion%20and%20Br.%20of%20Amici%20DC%20et%20al.pdf

I’m no lawyer but this seems pretty light on legal argumentation. Basically it says the electors clause doesn’t support Texas’ complaint and the ‘common sense’ anti virus measures taken  by defendant states didn’t result in election fraud.

Maybe someone with a legal background can flesh it out for us.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Anybody seen a synopsis of this one?

An amici curiae brief filed by the District of Columbia and “States and territories of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Washington” in support of Pennsylvania and the defendant states

Extremely disappointed North Carolina joined in here.

I don't have a synopsis @IsailedawayfromFR   --- Scroll down to: STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE. On page 7 of this section this line did jump out at me:  "Simply put, there is no evidence that voting by mail threatens the integrity of elections."

Here's the link to the full Brief:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163379/20201210144443769_Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Motion%20and%20Br.%20of%20Amici%20DC%20et%20al.pdf

[Bigun]

Looks like you'll just have to read it yourself: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163379/20201210144443769_Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Motion%20and%20Br.%20of%20Amici%20DC%20et%20al.pdf

I read it and FWIW, I find it laughable.  Not worth much since I get to decide nothing.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Updated Activity regarding the Texas Lawsuit:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

[Right_in_Virginia]

Defendant State Responses


Wisconsin:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163393/20201210150111653_Brief.pdf


Georgia: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163383/20201210145849997_Georgia%20--%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf


Michigan:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163387/20201210145404465_22O155%20Texas%20MI%20BIO%2012-10.pdf


Pennsylvania:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163367/20201210142206254_Pennsylvania%20Opp%20to%20Bill%20of%20Complaint%20v.FINAL.pdf

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I don't have a synopsis @IsailedawayfromFR   --- Scroll down to: STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE. On page 7 of this section this line did jump out at me:  "Simply put, there is no evidence that voting by mail threatens the integrity of elections."

Here's the link to the full Brief:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163379/20201210144443769_Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Motion%20and%20Br.%20of%20Amici%20DC%20et%20al.pdf

I read within this

At the outset, more than a hundred years of Supreme Court precedent
forecloses Texas and its amici’s theory that the Constitution requires legislative
bodies alone to set election procedures. In Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S.
565 (1916), for instance, this Court rejected an argument in the analogous Elections
Clause context that a state legislative body alone must structure the election process
when the Court upheld a popular referendum that rejected redistricting legislation
passed by the Ohio Legislature. Id. at 567, 569. Later, in Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S.
355 (1932), this Court similarly held that a governor may veto a congressional
redistricting plan, even though a Governor is plainly not part of a legislative body.
See id. at 372-73. There, this Court emphasized that the function envisioned by the
Constitution’s reference to state legislatures “is that of making laws,” id. at 366, and
it is within “the authority of the state to determine what should constitute its
legislative process,” id. at 372. More recently, in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona
4
Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015), this Court—again—
explained that the word “Legislature” does “not mean the representative body alone.”
Id. at 805; see Chiafalo v. Washington, 140 S. Ct. 2316, 2324 (2020) (unanimously
reaffirming states’ broad authority to oversee elections).

So the defense is rewriting what the clear wording within the US Constitution says regarding legislative prerogatives - saying each state can determine on its own what it considers a legislative body.  So their 'Elections Commission or Sec of Elections' is deemed to be a part of its legislative process, and the legislature has nothing to do with the process.

I do not see how this reasoning can hold up if one simply adheres to the Constitution.

[Cyber Liberty]

[Bigun]

I read within this

At the outset, more than a hundred years of Supreme Court precedent
forecloses Texas and its amici’s theory that the Constitution requires legislative
bodies alone to set election procedures. In Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S.
565 (1916), for instance, this Court rejected an argument in the analogous Elections
Clause context that a state legislative body alone must structure the election process
when the Court upheld a popular referendum that rejected redistricting legislation
passed by the Ohio Legislature. Id. at 567, 569. Later, in Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S.
355 (1932), this Court similarly held that a governor may veto a congressional
redistricting plan, even though a Governor is plainly not part of a legislative body.
See id. at 372-73. There, this Court emphasized that the function envisioned by the
Constitution’s reference to state legislatures “is that of making laws,” id. at 366, and
it is within “the authority of the state to determine what should constitute its
legislative process,” id. at 372. More recently, in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona
4
Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015), this Court—again—
explained that the word “Legislature” does “not mean the representative body alone.”
Id. at 805; see Chiafalo v. Washington, 140 S. Ct. 2316, 2324 (2020) (unanimously
reaffirming states’ broad authority to oversee elections).

So the defense is rewriting what the clear wording within the US Constitution says regarding legislative prerogatives - saying each state can determine on its own what it considers a legislative body.  So their 'Elections Commission or Sec of Elections' is deemed to be a part of its legislative process, and the legislature has nothing to do with the process.

I do not see how this reasoning can hold up if one simply adheres to the Constitution.

And if that argument prevails in this case we no longer have a Constitution.  It has become just another worthless piece of paper.

[Smokin Joe]

Michigan AG says Texas 'has no standing to disenfranchise' millions of voters
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/529767-michigan-ag-says-texas-has-no-standing-to-disenfranchise-millions-of

That makes the unfounded assumptions that:
 1: Those voters exist.
 2: Those voters actually cast the ballots in question (which was not verified according to State Law).
 3: That those ballots were lawfully verified to have been cast in a timely fashion. and
 4: Those votes, correctly and timely cast and verified according to law, were tabulated correctly.

With considerable evidence to the contrary, none of those assumptions can be made.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

That makes the unfounded assumptions that:
 1: Those voters exist.
 2: Those voters actually cast the ballots in question (which was not verified according to State Law).
 3: That those ballots were lawfully verified to have been cast in a timely fashion. and
 4: Those votes, correctly and timely cast and verified according to law, were tabulated correctly.

With considerable evidence to the contrary, none of those assumptions can be made.

We have the secret ballot though. When I vote in person, I Have to check off my name, but my name isn't associated with the ballot at all. So how could my ballot be verified then?

[Cyber Liberty]

We have the secret ballot though. When I vote in person, I Have to check off my name, but my name isn't associated with the ballot at all. So how could my ballot be verified then?

If your state requires ID to vote, then there is no need to verify your ballot.  This is why mail-in ballots are ripe for cheating.

[catfish1957]

If your state requires ID to vote, then there is no need to verify your ballot.  This is why mail-in ballots are ripe for cheating.

Exactly.  That is why I hope the SCOTUS lawsuit gets heard, and court rules that there was widespread evidence of fraud.  Hopefully, the solution will be to establish some fully accountable and responsible 3rd party system, to make sure this never happens again.

[Cyber Liberty]

Exactly.  That is why I hope the SCOTUS lawsuit gets heard, and court rules that there was widespread evidence of fraud.  Hopefully, the solution will be to establish some fully accountable and responsible 3rd party system, to make sure this never happens again.

The thing is, the Plaintiffs' case does not mention "fraud," because it's too difficult to prove.  This does not stop crooked Judges from dismissing cases due to "no fraud proven," despite nobody was even arguing that.  A Federal Judge in PA did exactly that

John "Empty Souter" Roberts will, however, rule against Texas because fraud was not proven, just as he ruled O'Bastard care was legal because the penalty was a "tax," even though nobody had made that argument. 

"He calls them as he sees them, and if he doesn't see them he makes it up."

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Exactly.  That is why I hope the SCOTUS lawsuit gets heard, and court rules that there was widespread evidence of fraud.  Hopefully, the solution will be to establish some fully accountable and responsible 3rd party system, to make sure this never happens again.

If it is not heard and Biden becomes President, that sound you will be hearing is the overwhelming voice of millions of Texans contacting their representatives to leave this country once and for all.

This fraud cannot stand.

[HoustonSam]

The thing is, the Plaintiffs' case does not mention "fraud," because it's too difficult to prove.  This does not stop crooked Judges from dismissing cases due to "no fraud proven," despite nobody was even arguing that.  A Federal Judge in PA did exactly that

"Fraud" will continue to be the lens through which many people incorrectly consider the case filed by Paxton, and unfortunately among those incorrect people there will likely be some USSC Justices.

I believe the evidence for fraud is very plain, even if it's somehow not adequate for Judicial action.  But the salient issue is not fraud, it's equal treatment of votes among the several states, and within a given state.  Even with no evidence for fraud the case is significant.

A blunt truth about this is that the red herring of fraud is largely brought on by Trump's own narcissism and the incompetent legal strategy that preceded Paxton's filing.  Making the issue all about fraud focuses the issue on Trump himself and how he was personally cheated; his legions will join in lock-step chants and religious shibboleths to that end.  It doesn't matter whether Trump was cheated, he's simply one person and people get cheated all the time.  I suspect that over the course of Trump's life he has committed at least as much cheating as he's experienced from others.

What matters is whether north of 80 million American voters were cheated due to unconstitutional election processes, and whether we will continue to have a meaningful Constitution.  Trump himself is a distraction.  If SCOTUS rules in such a way that Biden is inaugurated *and* that the actions taken in the defendant states are permanently struck down and can never be repeated - non-legislative changes to voting laws, inconsistent regulation of ballots regarding voter personal data, observers barred from effectively observing leading to midnight visits from the Democrat vote fairy - this will be a significant win.

[roamer_1]

"Fraud" will continue to be the lens through which many people incorrectly consider the case filed by Paxton, and unfortunately among those incorrect people there will likely be some USSC Justices.

I believe the evidence for fraud is very plain, even if it's somehow not adequate for Judicial action.  But the salient issue is not fraud, it's equal treatment of votes among the several states, and within a given state.  Even with no evidence for fraud the case is significant.

A blunt truth about this is that the red herring of fraud is largely brought on by Trump's own narcissism and the incompetent legal strategy that preceded Paxton's filing.  Making the issue all about fraud focuses the issue on Trump himself and how he was personally cheated; his legions will join in lock-step chants and religious shibboleths to that end.  It doesn't matter whether Trump was cheated, he's simply one person and people get cheated all the time.  I suspect that over the course of Trump's life he has committed at least as much cheating as he's experienced from others.

What matters is whether north of 80 million American voters were cheated due to unconstitutional election processes, and whether we will continue to have a meaningful Constitution.  Trump himself is a distraction.  If SCOTUS rules in such a way that Biden is inaugurated *and* that the actions taken in the defendant states are permanently struck down and can never be repeated - non-legislative changes to voting laws, inconsistent regulation of ballots regarding voter personal data, observers barred from effectively observing leading to midnight visits from the Democrat vote fairy - this will be a significant win.

That is neatly said @HoustonSam