Posted on 12/08/2020 5:38:16 AM PST by demkicker
The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court shortly before midnight on Monday challenging the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the Constitution.
Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson...
Texas refused to allow those voting machines that the other states allowed. Texas could reasonably argue that if its officials knew the machines were unreliable, officials of the other states should have known so also and disallowed the machines. The unreliability of the machines should be easy to prove.
No problem, as the rest of the country got to see us there; all - night - long!
Was thinking so but can’t find the link. Please advise.
Ohio should join the suit too.
Thank you.
I don’t think he is after a futile cause just to show off himself.
That’s actually a very poignant statement from Scott Adams.
You watchin' this?
Reading the article (and not the petition), there are indeed interesting Constitutional issues:
To what extent, if any, can the executive and/or judicial branches of government change the process for determining Electors, given that the Constitution expressly gives this power to the legislature of the states?
Nevada (where the Democrats control the legislature) demonstrates that it was possible, this past year, for the legislature to modify the process. So, why didn’t the executive appeal to the legislature, and/or why didn’t the courts order the legislature to make changes if such were compelled by the special circumstances of this year or by overriding Constitutional safeguards? The obvious reason is that the executive and/or the courts disregarded or actually wanted to usurp the power of the legislature.
With regard to relief, declaratory relief serves a purpose, but justice demands that the Supreme Court order a check of the signatures, at least on a probability sample basis, to determine if the interference had an impact on the outcome of the election. We already know that thousands of fraudulent ballots were cast by reason of the provisional ballots of in person, Election Day voters, where somebody fraudulently voted their ballot. We also know that no penalties have attached to those who committed these frauds, such as the almost non-existent safeguards against fraud after an election has been conducted. The question is how many fraudulent ballots were cast. To avert a Constitutional crisis, the Supreme Court should appoint a sufficient number of special masters from among persons in positions of trust in the federal government to verify the signatures of a meaningful sample of mail ballots, in one day. (I’d say 10 for Detroit, Fulton Co., and Phila., and 5 for Pittsburgh, and 5 each for a couple other southeastern Penn. counties.) Opposition to the obvious remedy would only be predicated by fear that the check would reveal sufficient fraud so as to question the outcome of the election. Election officials who are confident that they verified the signatures on mail ballots should welcome a check of the signatures in order to affirm the outcome of this year’s election.
LOL! Agree.
Oh I could see it for sure.
Makes himself relevant and willing to stand up ...and gives him an argument in the future when running for office.
Politicians do it all the time.
Trey Gowdy’s name will forever be linked in my mind to showboating hearings that go nowhere.
Nice try but I don’t think they can pull it off. Now, if all of the red states joined, maybe a different result. Will they?
Yeah well, don't count on Ohio.. In my opinion DeWiney is a stinking RINO and a half.!
This is the first and only case to raise a plausible Federal Constitutional issue, AND the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction!
I still think they will rule that it is nonjusticeable under the political questions doctrine (as they should), but it’s at least a nice try.
This Georgian loves that idea!!
We definitely have seen an overload of those. Too much talk and no action by all levels of government and, especially, Republicans. Leads me to think they really don't believe in what they profess and just use it to sucker people into giving them money and supporting them. So many things they speak loudly about but in the end do the opposite.
I’m being a little lazy this morning, but if those states were thrown out, what does that do to the remaining electoral vote count?
Does anyone know if it is common to have unsecured mail in ballots just laying around everywhere like was shown in the Ruby Freeman video where she films walking down hallways?
And is it common to be in a private cubicle when you go through those ballots as shown in that same video.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.