"Texas sues four battleground states in Supreme Court"

[BeamMeUpScotty]

"over 'unlawful election results' in 2020 presidential race"

I may need to take back what I said about Rep. Kelly’s PA suit being
the dumbest case I’ve ever seen filed on an emergency basis at the
Supreme Court.
This new one from the indicted Texas AG Ken Paxton (but missing the
name of Texas’s Solicitor General, who surely would not sign this
garbage) probably should win that prize.
Steve Vladeck canvasses the reasons why the Court won’t touch the case
(including its rules on taking cases directly under its original
jurisdiction).
My view in brief: this is a press release masquerading as a lawsuit.
Texas doesn’t have standing to raise these claims as it has no say
over how other states choose electors; it could raise these issues in
other cases and does not need to go straight to the Supreme Court; it
waited too late to sue; the remedy Texas suggests of disenfranchising
tens of millions of voters after the fact is unconstitutional; there’s
no reason to believe the voting conducted in any of the states was
done unconstitutionally; it’t too late for the Supreme Court to grant
a remedy even if the claims were meritorious (they are not).
What utter garbage. Dangerous garbage, but garbage.
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119395
Keep grasping at straws, you dumb fuck.

Although the Supreme Court has “exclusive” jurisdiction over disputes
between states, it does not automatically hear all such cases.
Rather, states have to receive “leave to file,” which usually requires
showing that there’s no other forum in which these issues can be resolved.
...
And as others have pointed out, it’s more than a little telling that
Kyle Hawkins — the Texas Solicitor General, who represents the State
before #SCOTUS — is not on the filings.
Good for him for refusing to associate himself with this utter and
indefensible nonsense.
https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336312379408322560

Texas can sue Dominion....

Then when they depose witnesses they can issue indictments for
DEFRAUDING TEXAS voters against the people who are names be they
government officials or Dominion corporation executives.

And in fact Texas has a list of reasons to sue already and it's the list
of REASONS that TEXAS didn't buy any Dominion voting machines.

They didn't TRUST them enough to buy them and they have all information
on the Dominion company ans all the statements as to how the system
works so if it failed to do that in those other States then Texas can
claim that Texas voters were defrauded by Dominion due to the use of the
Dominion Machines in those other States.

There's got to also be many many more different tacks that can be taken.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 12/8/2020 1:26 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled

"over 'unlawful election results' in 2020 presidential race"
[...]
Key Points
Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton on Tuesday filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate presidential
election results in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan.
The lawsuit asserts that "unlawful election results" in those four
states, which President-elect Joe Biden won, should be declared
unconstitutional.
The filing argues that those states used the coronavirus pandemic as
an excuse to unlawfully change their election rules.
Experts in election law were quick to dismiss the likelihood of the
nine Supreme Court justices taking the case.
[...]
Hmm, this could be interesting.

No, it's bullshit.

I feel it to be improper for one state to sue another for the manner
in which elections are conducted, but It also seems improper for the
Court to refuse to hear such a case.

It's not. The Supreme Court declines lots of appeals.
Texas has no standing.
The claims in Texas’ lawsuit “are false and irresponsible,” Georgia’s
deputy secretary of state, Jordan Fuchs, said in a fiery statement
shortly after Paxton announced the legal action.
“Texas alleges that there are 80,000 forged signatures on absentee
ballots in Georgia, but they don’t bring forward a single person who
this happened to. That’s because it didn’t happen,” Fuchs’ statement
said.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel called the suit a “publicity
stunt” and “beneath the dignity” of Paxton’s office. Josh Kaul, the
attorney general of Wisconsin, said in a statement the case was
“genuinely embarrassing.”
Experts in election law were also quick to dismiss the likelihood of
the nine Supreme Court justices taking the case. Paul Smith, a
professor at Georgetown University Law Center who has argued voting
rights cases at the Supreme Court, said the case was “wacko.”
“There is a whole system in Pennsylvania and the other states for
contesting the election — that’s all been done,” said Smith, who also
serves as vice president of litigation and strategy at the
nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “I don’t think the Supreme Court
will have interest in this.”
The professor added that Texas could run into trouble in proving that
it has grounds to sue, known in legal terms as “standing.”
“It’s totally unprecedented, the idea that one state would, at the
Supreme Court, claim that other states’ votes were cast in the wrong
way — that’s never happened,” he said. “What is the injury to the
state of Texas because Pennsylvania’s votes were cast for Mr. Biden
instead of Mr. Trump? There is no connection there.”
Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California,
Irvine, wrote on his popular legal blog that the suit was “utter
garbage” and also disputed the idea that Texas had standing, noting
that “it has no say over how other states choose electors.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/08/texas-sues-four-battleground-states-in-supreme-court-over-unlawful-election-results.html

Black, white, Gay, Female, Texas voters are being denied their civil
rights

Not by those four states the indicted Texas attorney general is suing.

If those four States denied Texas gays to marry in those states, then
their civil rights would matter, why is their civil right in the
Constitution to have a fair and equal vote NOT denied to them of less
importance. And as I remember the USSC took the gay marriage case and
did it quickly and then a federal judge put some county clerk in jail
for not following the FEDERAL MANDATE.

It looks like Democrats want to select which CIVIL RIGHTS we can use by
creating a selective enforcement of them in the courts.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 12/8/2020 1:47 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled

Post by BeamMeUpScotty

On 12/8/2020 1:26 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard
who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly

"over 'unlawful election results' in 2020 presidential race"
[...]
Key Points
Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton on Tuesday filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate presidential
election results in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan.
The lawsuit asserts that "unlawful election results" in those four
states, which President-elect Joe Biden won, should be declared
unconstitutional.
The filing argues that those states used the coronavirus pandemic
as an excuse to unlawfully change their election rules.
Experts in election law were quick to dismiss the likelihood of
the nine Supreme Court justices taking the case.
[...]
Hmm, this could be interesting.

No, it's bullshit.

I feel it to be improper for one state to sue another for the
manner in which elections are conducted, but It also seems
improper for the Court to refuse to hear such a case.

It's not. The Supreme Court declines lots of appeals.
Texas has no standing.
The claims in Texas’ lawsuit “are false and irresponsible,”
Georgia’s deputy secretary of state, Jordan Fuchs, said in a fiery
statement shortly after Paxton announced the legal action.
“Texas alleges that there are 80,000 forged signatures on absentee
ballots in Georgia, but they don’t bring forward a single person
who this happened to. That’s because it didn’t happen,” Fuchs’
statement said.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel called the suit a “publicity
stunt” and “beneath the dignity” of Paxton’s office. Josh Kaul, the
attorney general of Wisconsin, said in a statement the case was
“genuinely embarrassing.”
Experts in election law were also quick to dismiss the likelihood
of the nine Supreme Court justices taking the case. Paul Smith, a
professor at Georgetown University Law Center who has argued voting
rights cases at the Supreme Court, said the case was “wacko.”
“There is a whole system in Pennsylvania and the other states for
contesting the election — that’s all been done,” said Smith, who
also serves as vice president of litigation and strategy at the
nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “I don’t think the Supreme Court
will have interest in this.”
The professor added that Texas could run into trouble in proving
that it has grounds to sue, known in legal terms as “standing.”
“It’s totally unprecedented, the idea that one state would, at the
Supreme Court, claim that other states’ votes were cast in the
wrong way — that’s never happened,” he said. “What is the injury to
the state of Texas because Pennsylvania’s votes were cast for Mr.
Biden instead of Mr. Trump? There is no connection there.”
Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California,
Irvine, wrote on his popular legal blog that the suit was “utter
garbage” and also disputed the idea that Texas had standing, noting
that “it has no say over how other states choose electors.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/08/texas-sues-four-battleground-states-in-supreme-court-over-unlawful-election-results.html

Black, white, Gay, Female, Texas voters are being denied their civil
rights

Not by those four states the indicted Texas attorney general is suing.

If those four States denied Texas gays to marry in those states

Fuck off, you tried that gag already.

And since the "equal protection of the law" clause works for all Civil
Rights. The gays voting rights in Texas is just as important as their
civil right connected to gay marriage.

And we saw the USSC decide that gays have a RIGHT to marry in States NOT
allowing it because civil rights have to be equally recognized. The
USSC its self has created the precedence. They are pretty much bound by
their own decision and if they ignore it then they bring into question
the civil rights of the gay marriage decision. And that makes it easier
to overturn later.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 12/8/2020 1:26 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled

"over 'unlawful election results' in 2020 presidential race"
[...]
Key Points
Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton on Tuesday filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate presidential
election results in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan.
The lawsuit asserts that "unlawful election results" in those four
states, which President-elect Joe Biden won, should be declared
unconstitutional.
The filing argues that those states used the coronavirus pandemic as
an excuse to unlawfully change their election rules.
Experts in election law were quick to dismiss the likelihood of the
nine Supreme Court justices taking the case.
[...]
Hmm, this could be interesting.

No, it's bullshit.

I feel it to be improper for one state to sue another for the manner
in which elections are conducted, but It also seems improper for the
Court to refuse to hear such a case.

It's not. The Supreme Court declines lots of appeals.
Texas has no standing.
The claims in Texas’ lawsuit “are false and irresponsible,” Georgia’s
deputy secretary of state, Jordan Fuchs, said in a fiery statement
shortly after Paxton announced the legal action.
“Texas alleges that there are 80,000 forged signatures on absentee
ballots in Georgia, but they don’t bring forward a single person who
this happened to. That’s because it didn’t happen,” Fuchs’ statement
said.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel called the suit a “publicity
stunt” and “beneath the dignity” of Paxton’s office. Josh Kaul, the
attorney general of Wisconsin, said in a statement the case was
“genuinely embarrassing.”
Experts in election law were also quick to dismiss the likelihood of
the nine Supreme Court justices taking the case. Paul Smith, a
professor at Georgetown University Law Center who has argued voting
rights cases at the Supreme Court, said the case was “wacko.”
“There is a whole system in Pennsylvania and the other states for
contesting the election — that’s all been done,” said Smith, who also
serves as vice president of litigation and strategy at the
nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “I don’t think the Supreme Court
will have interest in this.”
The professor added that Texas could run into trouble in proving that
it has grounds to sue, known in legal terms as “standing.”
“It’s totally unprecedented, the idea that one state would, at the
Supreme Court, claim that other states’ votes were cast in the wrong
way — that’s never happened,” he said. “What is the injury to the
state of Texas because Pennsylvania’s votes were cast for Mr. Biden
instead of Mr. Trump? There is no connection there.”
Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California,
Irvine, wrote on his popular legal blog that the suit was “utter
garbage” and also disputed the idea that Texas had standing, noting
that “it has no say over how other states choose electors.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/08/texas-sues-four-battleground-states-in-supreme-court-over-unlawful-election-results.html

Black, white, Gay, Female, Texas voters are being denied their civil
rights

Not by those four states the indicted Texas attorney general is suing.

If those four States denied Texas gays to marry in those states, then
their civil rights would matter, why is their civil right in the
Constitution to have a fair and equal vote being denied to the Texas
gays or heterosexuals of less importance. And as I remember the USSC
took the gay marriage case and did it quickly and then a federal judge
put some county clerk in jail for not following the FEDERAL MANDATE.

It looks like Democrats want to select which CIVIL RIGHTS we can use by
creating a selective enforcement of them in the courts.