Arizona Supreme Court unanimously affirms Biden's win in state

https://tucson.com/news/local/arizona-supreme-court-unanimously-affirms-bidens-win-in-state/article_4a5758a7-db8d-52f9-9237-2c0c4b0550ac.html#tracking-source=home-top-story-1 ^ | 12/8/20 | Howard Fischer

[funfan]

I imagine she did use that but the courts are just throwing the cases out. All the other states with cases are saying the same thing when there is plenty of evidence of fraud the courts are not listening.

[funfan]

No.

[foundedonpurpose]

“Oh my God. What tyrants and traitors in black robes!”

Yes! They have been there for a while.

[foundedonpurpose]

We need other states to join the Texas suit.

[Steven W.]

She (Ward) /they did - the Court ruled that there was no evidence of fraud i.e. somebody caught in the act like in other states, etc., so therefore it’s speculative to think that all of the votes that would necessarily be thrown out went for JoePedo ... seems these folks are all bribed & blackmailed + heard about the car “crash” explosion in GA so they’re not doing anything.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

WTH? Kansas? Centurian? What happened to fortitude?

You can’t control other people just yourself. Go email the Attorney General of KS and tell him to become part of the Texas lawsuit. (I did.) The more states the better. If he doesn’t at least you dis something.

https://ag.ks.gov/about-the-office/contact-us/email-us

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

Steven;

White Cane Judges. There is no one so blind as the willfully blind.

At least Kelli Ward tried. Maybe this speeds up an appeal to The SC?

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

Off to bed.

[little jeremiah]

I am sure off to SCOTUS toot sweet.

[Celerity]

“We have too much to lose by enacting a just and fair punishment on our enemies as they deserve.”

Do you see the folly in this ?

[Svartalfiar]

Why do you think AZ isn’t listed in the Texas lawsuit?

Because AZ did not have the same issues as those four States, which is why NV and VA aren't included either. Those four all had Governors or Courts that added election 'law' that was not properly approved by their Legislatures. Whereas AZ/NV/VA/etc are simply cases of election fraud, which has been much more touchy-feely with the courts.

[enumerated]

That makes sense - Thanks

[Svartalfiar]

Three of the four can be magnanimous, and avoid some Democrat rioting, by allocating the EVs 50-50. If only one of the bigger 3 (PA, MI, GA) deny their EVs to Biden, by not certifying, or by giving the set to Trump, then Biden fails to get to 270 by Monday, and the 12th Amendment kicks in for the second time ever (1824, John Quincy Adams).
If MI, GA, and WI all go 50-50, and PA goes to Trump, that gives a 265-273 Trump win. If PA simply fails to certify, that gives Biden a 265-253 win.

If GA or MI is the flip and the other three go 50-50, Trump wins 271-267.

If WI is the solo flip, then Biden barely gets the win right at 270-268. There is no math with these four that sends it to the House, unless one of the States goes 11-5 or something like that to cause a tie. If all four just fail to certify, Biden wins 244-232. Trump has to gain votes from this, and he has to fully flip at least three of these States.

[Reily]

“..... If PA simply fails to certify, that gives Biden a 265-253 win. ..”

No Biden would have failed to reach 270. It would go to the House, a potential Trump win.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

Emailed a second time.

https://twitter.com/ksagoffice?lang=en

“Kansas AG’s Office
@KSAGOffice
·
4h
AG Derek Schmidt: Kansas asks U.S. Supreme Court to hear Texas election lawsuit https://ag.ks.gov/media-cente

[Svartalfiar]

“..... If PA simply fails to certify, that gives Biden a 265-253 win. ..”

No Biden would have failed to reach 270. It would go to the House, a potential Trump win.

If a State fails to appoint electors, that drops the 270. Winning is a majority of electors appointed, not total possible electors. Therefore if PA fails to appoint any, the total electors appointed drops to 518, meaning 260 is then the majority number to win.

[Svartalfiar]

That makes sense - Thanks

Yup. You'll notice that the TX suit makes no arguments based on any election fraud, it's just the Constitutional issues in this one.

Election fraud cases can be much more subjective, and are apparently very difficult to understand for most judges.

[enumerated]

Disenfranchising voters - unequal protection - violating the constitution -

Whether you call it fraud or not is semantics

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

The clouds are thickening, the wind is starting to blow!
Another suit seeking shelter in the Supreme Court!

[Reily]

I don’t think thats correct.

Show me the Constitution where that’s correct.

If a state fails to appoint the electors the requisite total of electors is still there. The state simply failed in its duty to produce its share thus failed to vote. Your example would only be true if the state left the country. The Constitution still leaves a solution - the House !