Posted on 12/15/2020 10:16:00 AM PST by Kaslin
this is BS
the effect of the entire State of Texas’s vote was effectively nullified, rendered worthless or moot, as consequence of the election theft operation in PA, MI, WI, GA, AZ. NV, etc.
the disenfranchisement of an entire state’s electorate (and many more states’ voters, to0) is a very extreme (and criminal) adverse impact ... one that the constitutional framers clearly intended to provide judicial redress, remedy for
indeed, it is difficult to imagine a case where the plaintiffs could have had any greater “standing” than this one!!! perhaps had PA amassed its state troopers and physically invaded Texas, maybe,
also,
It’s okay to decide on killing babies and forced healthcare, none of which is in the Constitution! Traitors also lie.
Regarding the misguided Roberts Court's politically correct (imo) argument for standing needed for Constitution's Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, please consider this. Justice Joseph Story had explained the following about the importance of resolving conflicts between the states in his Commentaries on the Constitution 3.
Story had explained that, because of history of conflicts between the original colonies, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gave states unrestricted access to the Supremes as a last resort to try to resolve conflicts that could lead to armed conflict between the states.
§ 1674. "Under the confederation, authority was given to the national government, to hear and determine, (in the manner pointed out in the article,) in the last resort, on appeal, all disputes and differences between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatsoever [!!! emphases added]. Before the adoption of this instrument, as well as afterwards, very irritating and vexatious controveries existed between several of the states, in respect to soil, jurisdiction, and boundary; and threatened the most serious public mischiefs. Some of these controversies were heard and determined by the court of commissioners, appointed by congress. But, notwithstanding these adjudications, the conflict was maintained in some cases, until after the establishment of the present constitution." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3, 1833, The University of Chicago Press§ 1675. "Before the revolution, controversies between the colonies, concerning the extent of their rights of soil, territory, jurisdiction, and boundary, under their respective charters, were heard and determined before the king in council, who exercised original jurisdiction therein, upon the principles of feudal sovereignty. This jurisdiction was often practically asserted, as in the case of the dispute between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, decided by the privy council, in 1679; and in the case of the dispute between New Hampshire and New York, in 1764. Lord Hardwicke recognised this appellate jurisdiction in the most deliberate manner, in the great case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore. The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time. Some tribunal, exercising such authority, is essential to prevent an appeal to the sword, and a dissolution of the government [emphasis added]. That it ought to be established under the national, rather than under the state, government; or, to speak more properly, that it can be safely established under the former only, would seem to be a position self-evident, and requiring no reasoning to support it. It may justly be presumed, that under the national government in all controversies of this sort, the decision will be impartially made according to the principles of justice; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality, by confiding it to the highest judicial tribunal." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,1833, The University of Chicago Press.
So by refusing to consider Texas’s evidence of alleged electoral vote manipulation in another state, the misguided Roberts Court has wrongly helped to increase tension between conflicted states imo, as opposed to examining evidence to try to help calm down the states as convention delegates had intended for SCOTUS to do to promote domestic tranquility insured in the Preamble to the Constitution.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility [emphasis added], provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
This article is all BS for a very simple reason. It is true Texas cannot make the rules for another state, but the Constitution does have stipulations. In this matter, the plaintiff states violated the US Constitution which all states must obey in the process. Texas as one state of the 50 has standing, it is that simple.
Conservatives have to obey laws.
Liberals do not.
So the libs are always going to win.
This article is correct.
I am an attorney with over a dozen years of almost exclusive Federal Court jurisdiction. One state does not have standing to sue another over how it runs its elections. A voter whose voting rights is affected has standing, as does the candidate. But not another state.
Allowing this case to proceed would result in any state suing any other over how it rungs its affairs. CA would sue TX over TX gun laws. It would be a free for all. And since SCOTUS has original jurisdiction over lawsuits between states, the SCOTUS would be overwhelmed with every state second-guessing how other states run their business.
I’ve said elsewhere, the TX lawsuit was frivolous on its face, and was just a show to placate PDJT and his supporters.
Once SCOTUS dismissed the lawsuit (as it should have) all the RINOs who signed off on it will come back to us and say “Welp, we did our best, and lost. Blame SCOTUS.” Then they will ask us for our support, our campaign contributions, and our votes, so that they can go back to business as usual.
They were right and the law was on their side.
The Supreme Court could have accepted it and ruled in Texas favor as a matter of law.
The Supreme Court carefully selects cases based not just on their merit, but on worthy they are shaping the law and setting precedent.
A very reasonable interpreting rationale was that, for at least some of the Justices, the Texas suit did not contain the case law, policy position and public perception that they wished to adjudicate to resolve the issue.
I’ve been told for the past 20 years we are doomed as the Roman Empire. I’m supposed to read about it in order to realize where we are headed. For what reason would I do this?
The constitution is there to protect our freedom. It’s easy to give it away. I swore to protect and defend it as should all citizens.
Quitter.
The Roberts Court will go down as one of the worst, if not the worst court in American history.
There was a thread here earlier about screaming matches between Justices, with Roberts screaming essentially that if they took the case there would be riots by BLM ANTIFA terrorists so they'd better not take the case at all.. In other words, mob rule and not rule of law.
No idea how true that report was.
if they had done it that way, they would have docketed the case, heard arguments on standing before getting to the merits, then immediately dismissed it. they didn’t do that b/c they knew how they’d come out didn’t want to create a cloud of uncertainty over the outcome
It may go down as the last...
I believe that te skirmish was passed over. The ruling spoke to other issues that standing and gave Trumps lawyers a road map to follow on the real case
The left won’t have to pack the Court. It’s done.
Historic cowardice.
> it would have been perceived as overturning the election based on a chicken s**t technicality
The US Constitution is not a “chickenshit technicality”.
Every state has on its books a procedure for a defeated candidate to challenge the results in that state's courts.
>In a nutshell, that’s what Texas was arguing.
They were right and the law was on their side.
The Supreme Court could have accepted it and ruled in Texas favor as a matter of law.
The Supreme Court carefully selects cases based not just on their merit, but on worthy they are shaping the law and setting precedent.
A very reasonable interpreting rationale was that, for at least some of the Justices, the Texas suit did not contain the case law, policy position and public perception that they wished to adjudicate to resolve the issue.<<
And as Sidney Powell said, “Well, someone has standing”
This is why the SC did not want to touch the Texas case, they knew Texas was right, the SC had just made the ruling about a month before this that it is unconstitutional, therefore illegal, for anyone other than state legislatures to enact or alter election laws.
State after state after state did so, which rendered millions of votes illegal.
There is no argument against that, it is cut and dried. This election was a farce and should not be allowed to stand. Even the State of Texas violated the US Constitution. Governor Abbot extended early voting. The Texas GOP said “um, you can’t do that, only the state legislature can do that” and sued him to stop it. The Texas Supreme Court, incorrectly I might add, ruled in Abbot’s favor and allowed him to extend early voting. All those votes are illegal and should not be counted. It’s plain as day.
So where we stand now is, either we obey the law of the land as established by the US Constitution, or we throw the law and the Constitution out the window. The only way to right this is a new election that is done so by the law as established by the US constitution. I will not participate however in another election done by electronic voting. That is another major issue that must be addressed.
No interest? Then I guess Biden won’t be president over the State of Texas, I presume?
“Texas argued that “the States have a distinct interest in who is elected Vice President and thus who can cast the tiebreaking vote in the Senate. “
No, their main argument (not even mentioned here) was far, far stronger - namely, that illegal votes cancel legal votes (disenfranchise legal voters), not just in the state where the illegal votes were cast - but in all states.
This argument is unassailable.
However, the SCOTUS may have done Team Trump a favor by rejecting the case, because regardless of standing, the specter of one state suing another state had serious pitfalls - at least with regard to public appearance:
The illegality in PA, for example, was perpetrated by certain large Democrat controlled precincts - they are the entities that should be sued - not the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a whole.
In fact, Pennsylvania as a whole was the victim, not the perpetrator. For public appearances, this distinction is all-important - and the Texas suit had the potential of blurring that distinction.
Put another way, it is far better for the American people to witness the good people of PA, GA, MU, AZ, WI, NV, etc. fighting for fair elections in their own states, against corrupt city Democrats who perpetrated the fraud in their state.
For what it’s worth, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) members living in a given town and who can truthfully allege that they occasionally frequent the municipal buildings thereof and who claim to be damaged by the excessively Christian content of so-called “holiday displays” on the green spaces in front of or between such buildings that include a crèche or Nativity scene, are never told that they lack standing.
Check out the contents of some of these crèche cases some day. They are utterly ridiculous.
As in many other situations in our stricken country, the question of standing seems to be decided in one direction or another depending on whose ox is being gored.
“The Constitution is a compact between the states [Article VII of the Constitution].”
Well, it was. That ceased to be a legal possibility once the Civil War happened and removed any illusion of state sovereignty. You can’t enter a compact if you have no sovereignty to enter compacts in the first place.
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.