That's nearly half.
Bfl
Thank you. Seems like it keeps growing/changing by the minute.
Ohio’s cracks me up
“in support of nobody”
democrat states:
states’ rights! states’ rights! states’ rights!
lol
JUST IN - 106 Republican House members just filed an amicus brief in support of Texas' bid to overturn Biden's win in the Supreme Court.— Disclose.tv 🚨 (@disclosetv) December 10, 2020
Quote from movie “The Hunt for Red October”. Seems to apply here: “This business will get out of control! It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it!”
I am OD’d on legal crap. Can’t take no more. Goodnight.
Soros puppets:
XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General
State of California
PHILIP J. WEISER
Attorney General
State of Colorado
WILLIAM TONG
Attorney General
State of Connecticut
KATHLEEN JENNINGS
Attorney General
State of Delaware
LEEVIN TAITANO CAMACHO
Attorney General
Territory of Guam
CLARE E. CONNORS
Attorney General
State of Hawaii
KWAME RAOUL
Attorney General
State of Illinois
AARON M. FREY
Attorney General
State of Maine
BRIAN E. FROSH
Attorney General
State of Maryland
MAURA HEALEY
Attorney General
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
KEITH ELLISON
Attorney General
State of Minnesota
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
State of Nevada
GURBIR S. GREWAL
Attorney General
State of New Jersey
HECTOR BALDERAS
Attorney General
State of New Mexico
LETITIA JAMES
Attorney General
State of New York
JOSHUA H. STEIN
Attorney General
State of North Carolina
ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM
Attorney General
State of Oregon
PETER F. NERONHA
Attorney General
State of Rhode Island
THOMAS J. DONOVAN, JR.
Attorney General
State of Vermont
MARK R. HERRING
Attorney General
Commonwealth of Virginia
DENISE N. GEORGE
Attorney General
U.S. Virgin Islands
ROBERT W. FERGUSON
Attorney General
State of Washington
After reading some of these arguments, something to note stands out...
Arguments to dismiss seem to rely on the premise that claims of fraud are baseless and unproven. (because the lower courts wouldn’t hear them)
So... i’m anticipating or speculating that SCOTUS will zero in on that first... Are claims of fraud that would impact the result baseless or not?
seems to me that if significant fraud CAN be proven, then the defendants do not have a defense.
This is probably the key filing from PA:
They say, among other things, Texas has no standing, etc..
IV.Texas is Not Entitled to the Extraordinary
Preliminary Injunction it Seeks
............................
27A. Texas cannot meet the high standard for
injunctive relief
................................
.................
27B. Texas’s request to disenfranchise tens of
millions of voters who reasonably relied upon
the law at the time of the election does great damage to the public interest
..........................
___________________________________________
PA makes no mention or concern about disenfranchising millions of Republican voters via illegal changes to voting procedures...
Any other opinions of people here who have a legal background?
Movants, who are elected and sitting Senators and Representatives of the State of Alaska, State of Arizona, and State of Idaho, and the sitting Lieutenant Governor of the State of Idaho. source
Jonathan Turley (Constitutional Scholar) says SCOTUS not likely to take it up.
Thank you for your work on this.
Thanks tarpit for being so diligent in presenting these cases in such a timely manner.
I just finished the PA response.
This MANDATORY SIGNATURE VERIFICATION statement by PA is the most unsettling to me:
“”””First, Texas asserts that the Secretary “abrogated”
the mandatory signature verification requirement for
absentee or mail-in ballots. Bill of Complaint at 14-15.
This is untrue. See In re Nov. 3, 2020 Election, 240 A.3d
591, 610 (Pa. 2020) (Election Code does not authorize
county election boards to reject mail-in ballots based on
an analysis of a voter’s signature. “[A]t no time did the
Code provide for challenges to ballot signatures.”). Far
from usurping any legislative authority, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused “to rewrite a statute in
order to supply terms which [we]re not present
4
therein.” Id. at 14. A federal judge reached the same
result. See In Donald Trump for President, Inc. v.
Boockvar, 2020 WL 5997680, at *58 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 10,
2020) (“[T]he Election Code does not impose a signature-comparison requirement for mail-in and absentee
ballots.”).”””
If that statement is anywhere near to being true, then why should any state have any rules regarding elections?
Under PA’s line of reasoning, an election in Pennsylvania is no more valid than a bunch of FReepers responding to a ‘poll on the internet’.
Thank you for putting this post together. Your efforts are appreciated.
The battle lines are drawn.
Plaintiff makes very few “factual” allegations relating to Michigan, with all allegations of supposed fraud arising from debunked claims about the processing and tabulation of absent voter ballots by the City of Detroit (the “City”) in Hall E of the TCF Center, a convention center in downtown Detroit.