Jump to content

7 states tell Supreme Court they support Texas attorney general’s bid to reverse Biden win


Monte1076

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

So you question me because I have an actual opinion yet lack the guts to decide on your own. I mean you seemed so sure the other day when it was filed. When they dismissed the PA case you claimed it was because this one was coming. 

I know how I think it should go and hope it should go - TX.  Now will SCOTUS have the guts to do the right thing, I have no idea.  I asked you a question too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Old49er60 said:

You think how it should go based on what? 

States handle their own elections, Texas is asking SCOTUS to overturn the election in 4 states, in effect to nullify all votes from there and give the election to President Trump. There is no president for this other than states are in charge of their own elections as set down by the Constitution. So yes I believe they will dismiss the case based upon the Constitution. You on the other hand have no opinion, you are afraid to pick because of fear of being wrong. You will then criticize SCOTUS while you can not give an opinion now and its basis. 

States must follow the US Constitution and their own State Constitutions in regard the the election laws and changing of election laws.  The state's board of electors can't just willy nilly decide to have mass mail-in ballots delivered to citizens in democratic cities....without first changing those laws through their state legislative process.  By doing this, they take away the equality of the voters in other states.

Also, TX isn't asking to nullify all votes.....just the illegally cast votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

Yes I do, because they will not overturn an election in 4 states. Just will not happen. 

So you think they will? Come on lets get you on record here, none of this I am not sure stuff, pick a side. 

 

21 minutes ago, ObiOne said:

So do they rule on the law or do they rule based on the potential outcome of their ruling?

I guess I'll post again since you don't seem to want to answer this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Old49er60 said:

So be very specific, what laws were broken. Please show the law they broke from their state. Having read the Texas lawsuit it should be easy to show. And yes they actually do ask to nullify the states votes because the votes in question were not separated. You can look that up in the Texas Suit, I will not copy and paste that for you. 

So give me the state laws broken in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. 

The making of new election laws by the election board is unconstitutional. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I do, because they will not overturn an election in 4 states. Just will not happen. 

So you think they will? Come on lets get you on record here, none of this I am not sure stuff, pick a side. 

 

  26 minutes ago, ObiOne said:

So do they rule on the law or do they rule based on the potential outcome of their ruling?

I guess I'll post again since you don't seem to want to answer this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

This is now the 3rd time

States handle their own elections, Texas is asking SCOTUS to overturn the election in 4 states, in effect to nullify all votes from there and give the election to President Trump. There is no president for this other than states are in charge of their own elections as set down by the Constitution. So yes I believe they will dismiss the case based upon the Constitution. You on the other hand have no opinion, you are afraid to pick because of fear of being wrong. You will then criticize SCOTUS while you can not give an opinion now and its basis. 

Texas is not asking to overturn an election. Where did you even get that notion? Texas and other states are asking that they follow there laws. Per the Pennsylvania Constitution. 
And yes before you ask, they will win. The remedy could only be to do it again per their own laws. I don’t know about the other states but I’m assuming it’s the same issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, KirtFalcon said:

It seems to me the only equitable and lawful outcome is for the SC to order those states to conduct new "constitutional" elections and to order a stop to the unconstitutional coronation of Plugs until that is accomplished  ....

And that is in no way trying to overturn anything. That is holding states responsible to their own laws. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Old49er60 said:

Yes the actually are..............

“Any electoral college votes cast by such presidential electors appointed” in those states “cannot be counted,” Texas asks the high court to rule.

No they aren’t. Trying to get a fair untainted election is not the same as trying to overturn it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Old49er60 said:

You think how it should go based on what? 

States handle their own elections, Texas is asking SCOTUS to overturn the election in 4 states, in effect to nullify all votes from there and give the election to President Trump. There is no president for this other than states are in charge of their own elections as set down by the Constitution. So yes I believe they will dismiss the case based upon the Constitution. You on the other hand have no opinion, you are afraid to pick because of fear of being wrong. You will then criticize SCOTUS while you can not give an opinion now and its basis. 

*precedent 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Youngcoach123 said:

Texas is not asking to overturn an election. Where did you even get that notion? Texas and other states are asking that they follow there laws. Per the Pennsylvania Constitution. 
And yes before you ask, they will win. The remedy could only be to do it again per their own laws. I don’t know about the other states but I’m assuming it’s the same issues. 

*their

  • LOL! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Old49er60 said:

Here is the exact full wording, so yes they were doing exactly as I said. Read the case before commenting, it will help. Next time you decide to say I am lying you might just check it first

CONCLUSION The motion for interim relief enjoining Defendant States from certifying Presidential Electors and from having such electors vote in the electoral college until further order of this Court should be granted. Alternatively, this Court should summarily vacate Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors and remand to Defendant States’ legislatures pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 and the Electors Clause.

Well that doesn’t say anything about trying to overthrow the election. Vacate the certification is not over throw.  Pennsylvania didn’t follow “their” (pilgrim) own laws and it’s a SC judicial fail not to hear the case. Just because they decided not to doesn’t mean they are right, cause they aren’t. A state has the right to petition another state in front of the SC and the SC dropped the ball. This is a terrible decision by “the courts” and will hurt our republic even more. And yes, you are still wrong

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Old49er60 said:

The word you are looking for is OVERTURN. That is the word you used. If they wanted to vacate their electoral votes then they would overturn the election in those states. I get the fact you are upset but what I said earlier about how the case would turn out and why...........yes it happened. Then I said people would attack SCOTUS, and poof it happened. 

Well you used it, not me.

7BAE095B-D707-49D2-A989-13CC0572A88A.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

The word you are looking for is OVERTURN. That is the word you used. If they wanted to vacate their electoral votes then they would overturn the election in those states. I get the fact you are upset but what I said earlier about how the case would turn out and why...........yes it happened. Then I said people would attack SCOTUS, and poof it happened. 

Oh and just to help you understand more since you obviously don’t understand words, vacate doesn’t mean the electoral votes go to someone else. They would have to hold another election by the rules. And yes, they ruled the way you said they would and I am attacking them. Rightfully so, this is literally the only way to petition another state. We are in a union and the only way to get grievances settled is to bring it to the SC, and the cowards wouldn’t even hear the case. They are pushing civil war, no one else. When you constantly disregard the grievances of the people you get violence. It’s only a matter of time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Youngcoach123 said:

Well that doesn’t say anything about trying to overthrow the election. Vacate the certification is not over throw.  Pennsylvania didn’t follow “their” (pilgrim) own laws and it’s a SC judicial fail not to hear the case. Just because they decided not to doesn’t mean they are right, cause they aren’t. A state has the right to petition another state in front of the SC and the SC dropped the ball. This is a terrible decision by “the courts” and will hurt our republic even more. And yes, you are still wrong

Don’t get into your feelings on my account youngster, I wasn’t picking on you. Just pointing out how the homophone po-po failed to fairly and evenly distribute corrections. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overturn is the word you used repeatedly and I misspoke and typed overthrow. You knew what I meant and are being disingenuous. 
The SC should have heard it, cause if a state goes rogue and ignores its own constitution and effects other states by its blatant violation of the rule of law, other states have every right to address the grievances before the SC.  Nothing you said is backed by what they did today. They refused to hear the case and you were not even close to the mark on that. According to the constitution of the US, they should have heard the case and made a ruling. They did not, and you never once made that prediction or expressed that as what was going to happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

Yes overturn is exactly what I said and there is a big difference between overturn and overthrow. The disingenuous part is you claiming I used overthrow in an attempt to change the meaning. 

Next they read the complaint, there was not enough there to continue, JUST AS I SAID they would deny it. Two justices said they should have heard arguments HOWEVER what else did they say??????? Right they would not give RELIEF. You guys seem to forget that part. Now if you read the actual suit you would know it had little chance to be heard based on what was in it. I talked about that earlier in the week. Yes it is in a post. And according to the CONSTITUTION they did their job, they dismissed the motion because it lacked the merit to be heard. By the way below is a copy of what I said would happen, when you refused to guess. 

States handle their own elections, Texas is asking SCOTUS to overturn the election in 4 states, in effect to nullify all votes from there and give the election to President Trump. There is no president for this other than states are in charge of their own elections as set down by the Constitution. So yes I believe they will dismiss the case based upon the Constitution. You on the other hand have no opinion, you are afraid to pick because of fear of being wrong. You will then criticize SCOTUS while you can not give an opinion now and its basis.

And again, Texas was asking for the court to have the states vacate the electors. (Which is grounds for another election per the rules of their state constitution.) not over turn the electors to Trump. Overturn is not the right word to use.  My opinion has been stated several times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Old49er60 said:

You really did not read the case, I gave the exact words as well as the law that went with it. They asked for 4 states to have their elections ignored. You have not read the case yet you are guessing because you do not want to be wrong again. READ THE CASE.

Yes the unlawful election would be ignored. What would happen after that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...