Posted on 12/15/2020 7:03:59 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Poor analysis. Whats the point in saving some obscure point of “federalism”, if by doing so you condemn the nation to communism?
And in any case, the only way a state (a party to a contract) can sue another state for violating the national contract is in the Supreme court.
And if sissy Roberts yells at them, Amy Coney Barret and Brett the keg party boy fold like a house of cards. Cowards.
“when the rest of them were told by chief justice Roberts in so many words to forget about it as it may lead to an unbelievable amount of riots.”
In other words, our side was not violent enough because the most violent side prevails in court? That is literally what Roberts said.
We do not have a republic if machines can be manipulated to choose our leaders. This is not judicial activism, it is saving our country.
And don't you forget it Bub.
Et tu, Hillsdale? The Supreme Court failed to defend the Constitution and honest, law-abiding American voters. They didn’t even have the courage to address the lawsuit or the relevant legitimate concerns that it presented. Now we have election results whose legitimacy we can rightly question. But the election-fraud-and-corruption show must go on. Who or what’s to stop it? Sow the wind....
This goes to the REAL issue that should be at the forefront of this discussion: Why the hell did those state legislatures allow this to happen, and why aren't THEY the ones contesting the elections?
Excellent point.
“It’s exactly the same response the Supreme Court would have made if Pennsylvania sued Texas over the way TX funds its school districts.”
Different circumstances. In that case Texas’s activities aren’t effecting who Pennsylvania’s President will be.
Mr. Carrington: The claim that specific entities (namely Pa, Ga, Mi and Wi) do not abide by the constitution directly shows injury to all other entities under that constitution. Otherwise, what is a constitution for? That gives not just Texas but all other states (and citizens) standing. Apparently, our Supreme Court, and you, missed that simple logic.
The article is a poor attempt to legitimize the failure of the Supreme Court to rule on the substantial issues raised by Texas v. Pennsylvania. Apparently, in the name of Federalism, the author has no qualms in upholding the results of the only National election, held every four years, by pretending that massive and documented fraud in the swing States had no impact on all of the States and their voters who abided by the State rules put in place to guarantee election integrity. The author’s claim than none of the fraud has been substantiated is laughable. While the author certainly knows how to use the appropriate judicial lingo to sound convincing, he utterly fails when it comes to substance. Sort of like the Supreme Court failed when it chose lack of standing over the merits.
The difference here is that the legal objections should really be coming from the state legislatures themselves, not the AG of another state.
I disagree. This had nothing to do with federalism. Texas and the other states that joined it in the lawsuit were not proposing to interfere with zoning or weed legalization or the property tax rate or any other matter that concerned those states internally. EVERY state agreed to the Elections Clause of the US Constitution for federal elections. That specifies that the LEGISLATURE makes the elections laws and sends electors to the electoral college.
So when you have situations in some states in which the judicial branch takes it upon itself to change elections laws or when the executive branch takes it upon itself to change elections laws - as happened in those states - they are violating the elections clause of the US Constitution. Considering the US is a federal republic which elects lawmakers to hold office in which they have the power to make and enforce laws that affect everyone in every state, it is simply absurd to claim that other states are not harmed by this breach of the constitution and thus lack standing.
As is the case on several issues, the Federalist is all wet on this one.
You couldn’t be more wrong. The 50 states are enjoined into a contract where everyone depends upon faithful execution of the contract for the common goal of electing a president and other things.
One party to a contract is suing a few others who committed violations for failure to live up to the terms. They did not sure every state where Biden won, only the states that cheated.
It was completely legitimate, has been done dozens of times before, and was in the proper venue.
One place where it is often done is in water law in the west. If New Mexico impounds too much water, it effects Texas downstream. So Texas had to sue New Mexico. It also happened when some states successfully sued to make other states restrict CO2.
It’s nothing new.
If a court doesn't think a plaintiff is eligible for relief then it shouldn't hear the case, period.
The Supreme Court -- or ANY court, for that matter -- isn't like a stupid Fox News segment or an idiotic Senate hearing. You don't get permission to have your case heard just for an opportunity to "air your claim."
I predicted that the “conservative” scribblers would be coming back to write endless pages of do-nothing prose. Their keyboards will be clicking away as they are loaded onto the boxcars.
Fixed it.
Texas school districts, or education policy is not discussed in the Constitution. But other things are. How electors are selected is. Pennsylvania would have no standing to sue over that. But if Texas illegally concluded a trade deal with Spain and a refugee deal with Turkey, if Texas decided to grant citizenship to Mexican citizens so they can vote....Pennsylvania could indeed sue.
1. I am one of the shareholders in a major corporation.
2. In advance of the annual meeting of the company's shareholders, I cast a proxy vote for a slate of directors named A, B, C, D and E.
3. You show up at the meeting and vote for the same slate of directors.
4. When the votes are actually cast, my proxy representative is absent from the meeting and my votes don't get counted. Or he just took my proxy votes and tossed them in the garbage. As a result of this, a competing slate of directors named V, W, X, Y and Z is elected to serve on the board.
What happens when all of this gets exposed? There's no question that I have all the legal standing to contest this election on the basis of my legitimate votes not being counted. But I'm not sure if YOU have the same standing if I really don't give a damn one way or another. In other words, the silence of the person MOST directly impacted by the malfeasance or misfeasance should itself weigh heavily in any legal action that results.
The court is useless to the people. They made that clear when they allowed taxing something that didn’t exist, the taxing of people for NOT buying Obama insurance.
This country does not need this court.
Do you know for sure that TEXAS conducted the election in full compliance with the protocols established by the state legislature?
I'll bet they didn't -- and not necessarily through any deliberate malfeasance, either. All Pennsylvania would have to do to get this case tossed out of court is demonstrate that one ballots among the millions cast in Texas should not have been counted because it wasn't cast in full compliance with Texas law.
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.