Kavanaugh and Barrett’s Share of the Shame

[Sled Dog]

No, it is not. That is the authority of the FEDERAL government. The 11th Amendment in fact prohibits states from suing other states.

Exactly the opposite is true.

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State; note 10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The next after the bolded portion, between a state and citizens of another state, was removed by Amendment 11.

But the USSC was the proper and legally required venue for Texas to sue the cheating Rodent states who stole the last election, and there is no provision, none at all, for the Supreme Court to summarily decline to hear the case.

Especially not a case the goes to the very heart of what the Constitution exists to protect.

[Bigun]

But the USSC was the proper and legally required venue for Texas to sue the cheating Rodent states who stole the last election, and there is no provision, none at all, for the Supreme Court to summarily decline to hear the case.

Especially not a case the goes to the very heart of what the Constitution exists to protect.

   Absolutely correct!  Now tell me who is going to hold them accountable for their having done so?

[goatprairie]

You demand the impossible.  If I were to say, I'm "just upset because trump lost," then I would be lying about my reverence for the Constitution that got stomped upon.

You wouldn't care...admit it. All of a sudden you'd be echoing the people who said Texas shouldn't interfere with Pennsylvania. You'd be hollering about states rights, etc. 
I don't recall any Dems hollering about Abbott changing Texas election laws without approval from the state legislature. It's no other state's business what Texas does with their election laws. If they're screwed up, it's up to the individual states affected to change them. Other states can go pound sand.

[Right_in_Virginia]

It's no other state's business what Texas does with their election laws. If they're screwed up, it's up to the individual states affected to change them. Other states can go pound sand.

@goatprairie

I'm reposting a link to the actual suit filed by Texas... it's very straight forward and Constitutionally based.  The Electors Clause of the US Constitution gives every state in the union the right to a voice in how each other state conducts its election for the President of the United States if and when the Constitution is violated.

STATE OF TEXAS v COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Here's the link:  https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

Pay close attention to:

NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Plaintiff State challenges Defendant States’ administration of the 2020 election under the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

[libertybele]

  Absolutely correct!  Now tell me who is going to hold them accountable for their having done so?

Not many in gov't have been held accountable or responsible.  That is a continuing problem with all branches of government and our DOJ is completely corrupt and now we can add the SCOTUS to that list!

It absolutely amazed me that 535 members of Congress couldn't rein in O'Bammy; and during part of his term the GOP held the majority. I always asked myself why they never did a dang thing? I concluded early on that both sides of the aisle are just as corrupt as the other.

[Cyber Liberty]

You wouldn't care...admit it.

@goatprairie

I would consider it a personal favor if you would stop doing my thinking for me (or anybody else).  It's annoying as hell. 

[Sled Dog]

  Absolutely correct!  Now tell me who is going to hold them accountable for their having done so?

I have no desire to run afoul of the Rodent Deep State goons at the DHS, FBI and DNC, let alone their enforcement arms the (b)LM and Aunty Fa.

[Sled Dog]

You wouldn't care...admit it. All of a sudden you'd be echoing the people who said Texas shouldn't interfere with Pennsylvania. You'd be hollering about states rights, etc. 
I don't recall any Dems hollering about Abbott changing Texas election laws without approval from the state legislature. It's no other state's business what Texas does with their election laws. If they're screwed up, it's up to the individual states affected to change them. Other states can go pound sand.

We should test that.

How about if the Rodents stop cheating on every election and let's see if the situation ever comes up where they succeed in gaining office again?   

The test can't be valid if Rodents don't cheat and never ever again get elected to office, right?

[Sled Dog]

Not many in gov't have been held accountable or responsible.  That is a continuing problem with all branches of government and our DOJ is completely corrupt and now we can add the SCOTUS to that list!

It absolutely amazed me that 535 members of Congress couldn't rein in O'Bammy; and during part of his term the GOP held the majority. I always asked myself why they never did a dang thing? I concluded early on that both sides of the aisle are just as corrupt as the other.

Yup.

Four filthy words come to mind to explain this:

1) Paul
2) Ryan
3) Mitch
4) McConnell

The RINO cabal controlled the Congressional majorities and stymied any effort by the Americans to implement common sense gun laws (think about it), common sense tax law, common sense immigration law, and anything else that would have defended the Constitution and rolled back the Rodent flood of invasion and treason.

And after the Rodents stole the 2020 election, Nasty Words 3 and 4 openly stabbed the winning president in the back.

Again.

[Hoodat]

The 11th Amendment in fact prohibits states from suing other states.

Florida sued Georgia over water (or lack thereof) flowing into the Apalachicola River.

[goatprairie]

@goatprairie

I'm reposting a link to the actual suit filed by Texas... it's very straight forward and Constitutionally based.  The Electors Clause of the US Constitution gives every state in the union the right to a voice in how each other state conducts its election for the President of the United States if and when the Constitution is violated.

STATE OF TEXAS v COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Here's the link:  https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

Pay close attention to:

NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Plaintiff State challenges Defendant States’ administration of the 2020 election under the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

So now you're against states rights?

[goatprairie]

@goatprairie

I would consider it a personal favor if you would stop doing my thinking for me (or anybody else).  It's annoying as hell. 

Just helping out.

[goatprairie]

We should test that.

How about if the Rodents stop cheating on every election and let's see if the situation ever comes up where they succeed in gaining office again?   

The test can't be valid if Rodents don't cheat and never ever again get elected to office, right?

Irrelevant to the question of states interfering in the business of other states. You're assuming something that hasn't been proved, cheating, that is unrelated to the issue.

[Smokin Joe]

Irrelevant to the question of states interfering in the business of other states. You're assuming something that hasn't been proved, cheating, that is unrelated to the issue.

The establishment Of election rules by non legislative actors within those States is a matter of record. That violates the Constitution of the US. That those rule changes facilitated cheating is moot (until discovery); the changes themselves are at issue.

[Right_in_Virginia]

You're assuming something that hasn't been proved, cheating, that is unrelated to the issue.

The Texas lawsuit was not about fraud.  The Texas lawsuit claimed four defendant states did not uphold the US Constitution @goatprairie

STATE OF TEXAS v COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Here's the link:  https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

Pay close attention to:

NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Plaintiff State challenges Defendant States’ administration of the 2020 election under the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

[Sled Dog]

So now you're against states rights?

What does the tenth Amendment have to do with the fact that many states, all ruined by too many Rodents, violated Article 2 of the Constitution...a power specifically delegated to the state LEGISLATURES?

[Sled Dog]

Irrelevant to the question of states interfering in the business of other states. You're assuming something that hasn't been proved, cheating, that is unrelated to the issue.

No.  Perfectly relevant.

If the cheating states hadn't cheated, the American states wouldn't have had standing to sue.

Also, the cheating states violated Article 2 of the  Constitution and were selecting their electors with procedures not authorized by the legislatures.

What part of the fact that those states violated the Constitutional requirement that the legislatures chose how their state selects their electors is eluding you deliberately?

[Right_in_Virginia]

So now you're against states rights?

Your question is not relevant @goatprairie

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, delegates the power to regulate the selection of Electors in a Presidential election to the United States, specifically: 

"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."

From the Texas lawsuit:

2. This case presents a question of law: Did Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by taking—or allowing—non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors?

[GrouchoTex]

Your question is not relevant @goatprairie

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, delegates the power to regulate the selection of Electors in a Presidential election to the United States, specifically: 

"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."

From the Texas lawsuit:

@Right_in_Virginia

This is correct, and SCOTUS was derelict in its duty not to hear the case(s)

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia

This is correct, and SCOTUS was derelict in its duty not to hear the case(s)

SCOTUS, IMO, in the real world they'd be criminally negligent ... By refusing to hear the case, they broke completely with the Constitution.  We've got 7 lawless judges on the court.

@GrouchoTex