The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: corbe on December 10, 2020, 09:38:22 pm
-
'PR stunt': Sasse predicts failure for Texas Supreme Court election challenge
by Nicholas Rowan, Staff Writer
December 10, 2020 12:57 PM
Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse on Thursday slammed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's election challenge pending at the Supreme Court, predicting that the court would dismiss it.
"I suspect the Supreme Court swats this away," Sasse told the Washington Examiner.
Sasse added that, to him, it looked like Paxton filed a "PR stunt rather than a lawsuit," in an attempt to gain "a pardon" from President Trump. Paxton is currently the subject of an FBI investigation for illegally using the power of his office to benefit Austin real estate developer Nate Paul.
Sasse noted that the lawsuit, in which Paxton said that officials in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin "tainted the integrity" of the presidential election with mail-in ballots, does not cover any new ground in election litigation.
<..snip..>
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/pr-stunt-sasse-predicts-failure-for-texas-supreme-court-election-challenge (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/pr-stunt-sasse-predicts-failure-for-texas-supreme-court-election-challenge)
-
Ben Sasse....is an asse.
-
What possible legitimate reason could any Republican have for publicly poo-pooing the SCOTUS challenge? It's entirely Constitutional. Regardless of what they personally think about it who profits when they belittle the effort?
Makes me wonder what Sasse has at stake in a Biden administration.
-
What possible legitimate reason could any Republican have for publicly poo-pooing the SCOTUS challenge? It's entirely Constitutional. Regardless of what they personally think about it who profits when they belittle the effort?
Makes me wonder what Sasse has at stake in a Biden administration.
Yes it is entirely Constitutional to file a lawsuit.
-
Yes it is entirely Constitutional to file a lawsuit.
Right.
In this case the Texas suit appears to be on solid constitutional grounds as the four defendant states clearly violated federal constitutional provisions prior to the election.
-
Right.
In this case the Texas suit appears to be on solid constitutional grounds as the four defendant states clearly violated federal constitutional provisions prior to the election.
But what standing would a totally unrelated state have to sue?
-
But what standing would a totally unrelated state have to sue?
? Every state has standing. It was a national election.
-
Sasse and his butt buddy Mike Lee are in Big Tech's hind pocket. They keep that cash cow in a Biden presidency
-
My BIG QUESTION is why did @Right_in_Virginia move this from her Elections 2020 Category to Editorials????
(https://static.onecms.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/35/2016/02/04032224/skyword-image-232581.gif)
-
Nice to have adults in the party putting country first.
-
Sasse and his butt buddy Mike Lee are in Big Tech's hind pocket. They keep that cash cow in a Biden presidency
888high58888
-
? Every state has standing. It was a national election.
It's not about overthrowing the election; it's about states adhering to the Constitution.
-
Team Trump has had virtually all their fifty plus cases dismissed. What are the chances this one will succeed? :pondering:
-
Team Trump has had virtually all their fifty plus cases dismissed. What are the chances this one will succeed? :pondering:
Do you mean Texas shouldn’t bother?
-
Do you mean Texas shouldn’t bother?
What do you think will be the result? Would you bet money on Team Trump winning?
-
What do you think will be the result? Would you bet money on Team Trump winning?
I guess I don’t think of it in those terms, I’m thinking more along the lines of what is right.
Considering what is in store in a Biden administration I certainly hope Trump wins. Don’t you?
-
I guess I don’t think of it in those terms, I’m thinking more along the lines of what is right.
Considering what is in store in a Biden administration I certainly hope Trump wins. Don’t you?
Most cases Team Trump has brought before state courts have been dismissed with prejudice.
Why do believe this one will be different before the SC? Many people think the SC will do the same as the state courts....... that is throw it out.
-
Most cases Team Trump has brought before state courts have been dismissed with prejudice.
Why do believe this one will be different before the SC? Many people think the SC will do the same as the state courts....... that is throw it out.
Its clear the election was stolen. Should Trump not fight?
-
But what standing would a totally unrelated state have to sue?
If you believe that a state that has electors vote for a Presidential candidate and that candidate does not attain a majority through the machinations of other states which disobeyed the Constitution regarding the selection of electors, there is certainly standing.
Those that obeyed the law were disenfranchised by those not obeying the law in the selection of President.
-
Most cases Team Trump has brought before state courts have been dismissed with prejudice.
Why do believe this one will be different before the SC? Many people think the SC will do the same as the state courts....... that is throw it out.
Completely different as this is a suit from a state against a state regarding adherence to the Constitution.
You are comparing apples and oranges, Mr. T.
-
Completely different as this is a suit from a state against a state regarding adherence to the Constitution.
You are comparing apples and oranges, Mr. T.
Quite simply, the Constitution provides that the several Legislatures of the States shall set the rules to be followed in their respective electoral processes.
If some do and some do not, then the Constitution is not being equally followed, and the Equal Protection Clause may be invoked.
It is a call for all States (and Commonwealths) to follow the Constitution, and for their respective legislatures to establish those election rules, not for the edicts of governors, election supervisors, or others to usurp that power. Twenty Four Senators from PA have filed an Amicus Curie brief with SCOTUS on the side of Texas. In addition to Texas, at least seventeen other states have filed Amicus Curie briefs in support of Texas' suit.
-
I guess I don’t think of it in those terms, I’m thinking more along the lines of what is right.
Considering what is in store in a Biden administration I certainly hope Trump wins. Don’t you?
One huge problem is Texas is one of the states that violated what they're accusing the other states of doing.
But given that, those states filing briefs are interfering with the voting results of other states. Where's the federalism?
-
Its clear the election was stolen. Should Trump not fight?
It's definitely not clear. If it were definitely clear, Team Trump would have won a lot more cases. They're not even alleging fraud.
-
Its clear the election was stolen. Should Trump not fight?
It may seem clear, but there's little if any concrete evidence. That's the trouble with a secret ballot: you can't tell who voted for whom (as it should be, for many other reasons), which makes it far more difficult—if not impossible—to tell how fraudulent votes tipped the outcome.
In America, the burden of proof is on the accuser, so with the secret ballot obfuscating the evidence, the accuser is unable to tell what the vote tally was actually supposed to be. So suing is not going to get us anywhere.
The only way to ensure it doesn't happen is through voter security measures that prevent it before it happens. The fact that Democrats oppose such measures should tell you everything you need to know about their motives.
But suing isn't going to do much.
-
It's definitely not clear. If it were definitely clear, Team Trump would have won a lot more cases. They're not even alleging fraud.
Oh it's clear, at least to the open minded. But with signature verification now impossible, chain of evidence forever spoiled as well as the length of time involved in establishing systemic fraud with the machines the best shot the administration has at getting the result they are after is in the breach of Constitution by the four states alleged in the Texas lawsuit.
-
Quite simply, the Constitution provides that the several Legislatures of the States shall set the rules to be followed in their respective electoral processes.
If some do and some do not, then the Constitution is not being equally followed, and the Equal Protection Clause may be invoked.
It is a call for all States (and Commonwealths) to follow the Constitution, and for their respective legislatures to establish those election rules, not for the edicts of governors, election supervisors, or others to usurp that power. Twenty Four Senators from PA have filed an Amicus Curie brief with SCOTUS on the side of Texas. In addition to Texas, at least seventeen other states have filed Amicus Curie briefs in support of Texas' suit.
If you read the claims by the states supporting the defenders, http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,422131.msg2342684.html#msg2342684 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,422131.msg2342684.html#msg2342684)
you will find that one item they are claiming is that that each state decides what is the legislative process within the state, and even though the Constitution says legislature, the state can change that to mean a legislative process for the purposes of elections.
Some people just cannot read.
-
If you read the claims by the states supporting the defenders, http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,422131.msg2342684.html#msg2342684 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,422131.msg2342684.html#msg2342684)
you will find that one item they are claiming is that that each state decides what is the legislative process within the state, and even though the Constitution says legislature, the state can change that to mean a legislative process for the purposes of elections.
Some people just cannot read.
Whats disturbing to me is opinions are evolving with the media narrative and there are even posters here who are beginning to claim it's not clear any fraud happened. In spite of the warnings about mail in ballots, the many rat pre election legal challenges loosening election security and extraconstitutional remedies proscribed, the huge election night ballot drops, tabulation stoppages, sketchy voting machine sofgtware, sworn affidavits, etc. The capacity of the human mind for rationalization. Unbelievable.