BREAKING: SCOTUS GIVES GA, MI, WI, AND PA UNTIL THURSDAY DEC 10 AT 3PM TO RESPOND TO SUIT BROUGHT BY TEXAS

Twitter ^ | 8 Dec 20 | Anonymous Patriot

[BlackFemaleArmyColonel]

SCOTUS GIVES GA, MI, WI, AND PA UNTIL THURSDAY DEC 10 AT 3PM TO RESPOND TO SUIT BROUGHT BY TEXAS.

[novemberslady]

I’ll always believe Justice Antonin Scalia was murdered so hussein could replace a Constitutionalist with a leftwing communist

Bttt

[Deo volente]

It will be very, VERY interesting to see how the Blue Kingdoms “justify” the cheating!

The states's response: "What cheating??"

[Deo volente]

Here’s an everyday example: You go to a federal surplus auction. You want to bid on a piece of equipment. You have a competitor that can print all the dollars they want on the spot and the auctioneer will accept the counterfeit dollars but you must show real dollars. Why should you even bother to bid? Are you treated equally in the auction? No, you’re not treated the same.

So you take the auctioneer to court and sue them for treating you unequally, from some bidders they will accept counterfeit dollars but you’re not allowed to counterfeit because you have to obey the law.

So at this crooked auction, only crooks can win the bids and take the goods. Is the court going to allow that?


That's a powerful example!!

[Shady]

Of course.....

[MamaTexan]

Which has what to do with the original intent of the Republican clause?

[1Old Pro]

The states must justify why their unconstitutional cheat-by-mail-in ballots that were not passed through their respective legislatures did not disenfranchise the states like Texas, et al. where voters did everything according to the Constitution.

Seems like a heavy lift. :)

[Jim W N]

!!

[RummyChick]

Why does it have to have anything to do with your post

you seem to want to expound on the topic in depth so you must have some knowledge..so i asked you a legal question

[cuban leaf]

I’m in Kentucky. Our election came out the way it should. I have nothing to fight.

Those in Pennsylvania may have to get involved though. And Georgia, etc.

[StAnDeliver]

"Been trying all day to tell people that all of this is just common procedure and that it means nothing as far as what the Court will actually do. Everything that comes to the Court gets docketed, asking for a response is pretty standard, etc. But people are falling for twitter nonsense."

What does 'twitter nonsense' mean? As I've explained on Twitter:

• SCOTUS accepted a case of "original jurisdiction".
• Since 1960, less than 80 cases admitted to that bar.
• De novo (new) probably less than half that.
• SCOTUS 'argument' days are over for 2020.
• There are none scheduled before Jan. 6, 2021, which is the day Congress meets in Joint Session where Challenges to Electoral Vote Returns may be made.
• IF SCOTUS fails to schedule an emergency hearing in Texas after Thursday Dec 10's Response deadline, they know they will be endorsing chaos on Jan. 6.
• Adding to this urgency is Republican Party v Boockvar also pending in SCOTUS, and is the case where PA directly disobeyed an Order to segregate ballots by Justice Alito.
• Alito is not going to allow that to pass unaddressed as even the simplest reading of his recent FedSoc speech will elucidate:

  "The pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty. Think about access to the courts, or the constitutional right to a speedy trial. Trials in federal courts have virtually disappeared in many places who could have imagined that the COVID crisis has served as a sort of constitutional stress test.

  And in doing so it has highlighted disturbing trends that were already present before the virus struck... One of these is the dominance of lawmaking by executive Fiat rather than legislation...Second, laws giving an official so much discretion can of course, be abused. Simply slapping on that label cannot provide the ground for abrogating our most fundamental rights. And whenever fundamental rights are restricted, the Supreme Court and other courts cannot close their eyes.

  That sort of thing is often happened in countries governed by power, not law. The Supreme Court Justice from one such place recounted what happened when his court was considering a case that was very important to those in power. He looked out the window and saw a tank pull up and point its gun toward the court. message was clear, "side the right way." Or the courthouse might be shall we say restructured?"

[unixfox]

Why is Twitter the information source on this?

MSNBC is reporting this as a "Publicity Stunt."

99% of the media are worthless.

[nwrep]

the Constitution's delegation of authority to state legislatures to control the election process is severely weakened,

Most state legislatures, if not all, have ceded the authority to appoint electors to their respective SOS and Governors. This delegation was done statutorily, by enacted laws in the various states over the past century. As it stands today, almost no state legislatures appoint the electors.

[MamaTexan]

you seem to want to expound on the topic in depth so you must have some knowledge..so i asked you a legal question

First, I never claimed any kind of expertise, so I wasn't 'expounding', I was simply offering an opinion on the Original intent of the clause mentioned, and provided sources for such.

Secondly, even a layperson such as myself knows enough about the law to realize answering a legal question without any context whatsoever isn't an inquiry, it's a trap.

[pierrem15]

They can delegate the responsibility to administer the rules they set. They cannot delegate the responsibility to make up the rules. It’s a separation of powers issue.

[RummyChick]

It’s not a trap. The context is the Texas case. SCOTUS has original jurisdiction.

I asked how many votes were needed to take the case

If you are going to expound on Constitutional law to rebut the lawyer who wrote that post (who has an LLM)...I figured you must have some knowledge about how many votes it will take.

[pierrem15]

But I am sure they are frantically looking for a way to weasel out of this without damaging their gravitas for more important things like giving illegal aliens more rights than actual citizens...

I agree, but then following the moronic Hamdan decision, an unlawful combatant at Guantanamo has more standing before the Federal courts than an American disputing a fraudulent election.

[nwrep]

The statutory delegation, enacted over the past century at various times in the 50 states, a) specifies a method for selecting electors (either by popular vote for the whole state or by Congressional districts); and b) specifies that such electors are then appointed and certified by the SOS and the governor. It is all very clear cut - The legislative body delegating a specific function to be carried out in a specific manner to the executive body.

[pierrem15]

The simplest and (for the SCOTUS) easiest thing to do is to say there were gross violations of the legislature's rules for conducting the elections in these states, and therefore the elections are invalid, and the Court directs the state legislatures to fix the mess.

I worry that if they do this, there will threats of gross physical violence against Republican legislatures, especially in WI. Due to COVID, they should just meet remotely and assign the electors to Trump.

Many Americans and the world may be shocked to discover that we live in a republic and not a democracy.

[cookcounty]

SCOTUS much prefers to hear a case that is global and all-encompassing rather than dozens of appeals that are piecemeal, involving only one state or one issue.

This is it.

[pierrem15]

You're only addressing the high level elements of the legislation, not the nitty-gritty of how the votes take place, which ballots are valid and which invalid, etc.

The current lawsuits are not contending that the delegation of responsibility for certification, etc., are unconstitutional.

The lawsuits are asserting that the state courts' and executives changing of the details, especially regarding mail-in ballots, were both unconstitutional as a matter of law, and (using a preponderance of the evidence based on eyewitness affidavits and statistics) fraudulent.