Grey_whiskers, see comments by bitt, Professional, greeneyes, mbrfl, billyv, and little Jeremiah below.
Could the Texas case be a trial balloon, to be reintroduced later when more evidence in, and a date had passed giving the plaintiff standing?
To: Professional; Ymani Cricket
Isn’t it odd/interesting that...
The SCOTUS asked the 4 states to respond, to a case they KNEW they’d kick out. Why?
~~~~~~~
maybe they wanted to verify their position?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@RedRock1T
Replying to
@CodeMonkeyZ
Texas doesn’t have standing because the fraud was in collusion with foreign states making the fraudsters enemy combatants...
and therefore classifed and under military law not constitutional law.
see executive order on election interference.
1,407 posted on 12/11/2020 9:21:15 PM PST by bitt ( Let every child of the Republic LEARN TO LIVE FOR HIS GOD, his land and Union.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1258 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: bitt
Damn... see, now we’re on to the real deal.
1,415 posted on 12/11/2020 9:28:04 PM PST by Professional ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1407 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: bitt
Texas doesn’t have standing because the fraud was in collusion with foreign states making the fraudsters enemy combatants...
and therefore classifed and under military law not constitutional law.
see executive order on election interference.
********************************************************************************
WOW. Very INTERESTING. We’ll see what happens.
1,443 posted on 12/11/2020 9:46:22 PM PST by greeneyes ( Moderation In Pursuit of Justice is NO Virtue—LET FREEDOM RING)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1407 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: bitt
That’s interesting. But if that is the reason they declined the case, they lied about it in their decision.
“The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution,” “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”
1,456 posted on 12/11/2020 10:21:40 PM PST by mbrfl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1407 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: bitt
Texas doesn’t have standing because the fraud was in collusion with foreign states making the fraudsters enemy combatants...
@@@@@@@@@@@@
There is also the point concerning “Standing” that Texas has not suffered “Harm” yet.... until the Electoral College CASTS votes and they are accepted on the 6th of January then so far no harm is done to the several states YET....
Then we get the argument that if accepted by the House/Senate USSC has no jurisdiction in the issue....... Catch 22....
It is incumbent upon the House/Senate to do their due diligence and not accept these Electors votes on the 6th....Good luck finding D.C. Pols with backbones.
On the other hand, POTUS DOES HAVE STANDING because the states have “Certified” illegal and fraudulent elections and he is improperly declared the loser......Game is still on! Go POTUS! MAGA! WWG1WGA!
1,594 posted on 12/12/2020 5:30:49 AM PST by Billyv ( Ephesians 6:11 for we battle not against flesh and blood...Pray for our leaders and nation )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1407 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: bitt
@RedRock1T
Replying to
@CodeMonkeyZ
Texas doesn’t have standing because the fraud was in collusion with foreign states making the fraudsters enemy combatants...
and therefore classifed and under military law not constitutional law.
see executive order on election interference.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WELL WELL WELL WELL WELL
1,647 posted on 12/12/2020 7:27:48 AM PST by little jeremiah (Thirst for truth is the most valuable possession and no one can take it away from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1407 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]