SCOTUS REJECTS Texas Lawsuit! Here’s Why THIS IS NOT OVER BY A LONGSHOT!!!

youtube ^ | 12/12/2020 | Dr. Steve Turley

[Signalman]

SCOTUS REJECTS Texas Lawsuit! Here’s Why THIS IS NOT OVER BY A LONGSHOT!!! (Substantive part of video begins at 3:45.)

Giuliani's Team has filed suits in the 4 states (WI, MI, PA and GA)where Trump DOES HAVE STANDING since he was directly affected by the fraud.

Because of these case and additional cases filed by Sean Parnell, the Dominion case and others, Turley believes there is a solid chance that the President of the Senate, Mike Pence, will not certify the electors, who vote on December 14th. As a result, a fully contested election will get thrown to the House of Representatives where the state delegates will elect Trump. There are 30 Republican state delegations and 20 Democrat.

[mbj]

This still feels confusing to me.

Re. #2 - so if as a result of fraud, the Democrats manage to pack the courts, add states and ram all manner of evil down our throats, this is completely inconsequential to the courts? It’s not a matter of what any given state WANTS, it’s about upholding the rule of law.

If a state violates its own election laws and its own constitution, then its election result just cannot stand.

[mbj]

+1

[MIA_eccl1212]

Not exactly true.

[V K Lee]

SCOTUS should go back to the notes from a prior case. The ‘justices’ found no problem with standing when taking on the case of 700,000 illegal DACA participants when given rights by only an EO from a former faux president; an attempt to rescind those rights by a sitting President.

BCP reminded American citizens of that fact just this evening. DACA children have more standing than Americans in the states making this US have.
Something just isn’t right here.

Dr. Steve - he is an antidote for pessimism; found just at the moment when it was so needed.

[jmclemore]

Re. #2 - so if as a result of fraud, the Democrats manage to pack the courts, add states and ram all manner of evil down our throats, this is completely inconsequential to the courts? It’s not a matter of what any given state WANTS, it’s about upholding the rule of law.

If a state violates its own election laws and its own constitution, then its election result just cannot stand.

Upholding which law? The Constitution gives state legislatures the authority to make laws governing the election rules of their state. To say it correctly, the constitution gives the state legislature the authority as to how the electors of their state are selected. You as a voter do not vote for president. Your vote is for electors.... But wait there's more. While your vote is for electors, the electors are still chosen by the state legislature.

Armed with that nasty bit of information - try stepping before SCOTUS, State SC, or any court and try to argue your rights as a vote in the presidential election were violated. Even better, try and argue the your rights as a voter for electors were violated.. According to the constitution, you have no right to vote for either... and that is the disgusting reality

If a voter in their own state lacks standing, then nor do other states or their voters have standing.

This is why we are seeing SCOTUS and State SCs dropping cases for a lack of standing.

For elections to work the way we expected, would require a constitutional amendment - But that would also mean taking the authority for selecting electors from state legislatures. I would suggest keeping the electoral college, mandate that every states electors be chosen proportionally by popular vote of voters who are US citizens, registered to vote and residents of the state they are voting in.

[SandwicheGuy]

It’s way past over. Nothing will come of this

... Those with the faith of a flea... Be prepared to eat crow. Being a defeatist never got no one nowhere.

[poconopundit]

Yes, the SCOTUS is two-faced. But I think there’s a fall-back position that we have in our corner — the Constitution!

There’s a Constitutional way to overturn this fraud. The legislatures of the States can step up and defend our Republic. And that may be enough room to allow us to reform our voting system and allow the Republic to live another 50 years — after which it probably needs to be fought for again.

Our current challenge is nothing compared to the Revolution, the Civil War or World War II. We need to constantly remind ourselves. We WILL prevail!

[drdirt333]

Correct. Roberts bullied our newly minted junior justices with the guilt trip of “Do you want to be responsible for the riots if we hear this case. To which Kavenaugh and the liberals smiled in agreement, Barrett and Gorsuch agreed without a smile. Thomas and Alito were angry. Thomas replied “This is the end of the Democracy, John.”
If one who claims to have been on the other side of the door is to be believed. Shocking report, if true, and Im a believer.
But I disagree with Thomas, it’s the end of the currently constituted court, but far from the end of Democracy. This court is dead. Roberts papp about riots is pure papp, we know he’s compromised. The shocking part is the three Trump appointees know he’s compromised, they know they had/have a duty and opportunity to uphold and defend the Constitution but chose not to. Why? The big why. The unknowable why. If asked they’ll lie.
A country of laws, not of men need and require a back stop, for there will be different ways of skinning cats. We have to have somebody to call balls and strikes. But we’ve demonstrated that this current framework of life time appointments to shed the appearance of politics is unworkable, we’ve proved in that in so so many ways.
Do we impeach this crop, plant new ones and hope and pray for fidelity to the Constitution ? Lol.
This court is dead, no opinion they come up with will have any respect. The court is being weaponized for a democrat advantage, like so much of the rest of government.
Now what?

[V K Lee]

“We WILL prevail!”

---

May we do so with fewer hardships, less suffering than we endured previously.

[mbj]

> Upholding which law? The Constitution gives
> state legislatures

Didn’t Pennsylvania violate its own constitution on how to run an election? And then, when the (GOP) legislature wanted to step in, didn’t the state governor refuse to allow them to convene? (Or am I mixing up states in my mind? Very possible)

I’m far from opposed to the state legislatures from operating according to the constitution, but it seems like they may have been prevented from doing so...or am I mistaken?

OK, so maybe I myself as a citizen have no direct right to vote. BUT it seems like another state should still require that another state act in accordance with, and consistent their own constitution - at least when it comes to a national election election. Other states and their citizens can be harmed when a state or group of states fails to uphold their own laws.

I do wish for the current electoral college to remain; it seems to be the fairest way (in spite of its quirks) to ensure equity.

[21twelve]

You are correct to a degree. Except even the state legislature when it decided to allow mail in voting in 2019 broke the rules as it went against their state constitution. They needed to change their constitution which had the voting rules in it; which requires a 2/3 vote, then a vote/referendum put to the voters, etc.

So the legislature broke the rules, and then the state court added all of the other changes which also broke the rules.

[mbj]

So when there’s an utter mess like that, in my judgment it seems totally appropriate for a harmed party such as another State to bring suit - because there were legitimate matters of law.

If I understand correctly, the state of Texas is not quibbling over which type of machine or tabulator/enumerator to use, but rather a matter of law.

So I don’t see it as one state meddling with another state’s rights or process, but rather requiring that state to abide by its own rules - and requesting redress when those rules were violated.

We are a nation of laws, not a nation of whimsical secret negotiations. Or at least, we OUGHT to be!