Posted on 12/08/2020 5:59:53 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
SCOTUS GIVES GA, MI, WI, AND PA UNTIL THURSDAY DEC 10 AT 3PM TO RESPOND TO SUIT BROUGHT BY TEXAS.
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.twitter.com ...
“If they refuse this one, the coming implosion of the Republic will be solely due to their refusal to uphold the Constitution while tacitly approving tyranny, history will look very poorly on them .... “
It’s a pretty thought.
But the media controls what “history” will say or not say.
And the Justices all know this.
“I think the US Supreme Court want to deal with the issue of changing election laws without the approval of the state legislatures in one case, not having to deal with each state on separate cases. It saves the Supreme Court time.”
I think your right.
And I think that is scary as shiite.
I would be happy going that route. You either follow the law and make things fair or you dont and those that want to follow the law seperate
Great suppositions, but only that as are mine.
Remember, extorted once.....extorted for the rest of your life.
“Is this why Justice Alito refused to hear the Pennsylvania case?
He knew they would act on the Texas case?”
This theory makes no sense to me. If the courts and Justices are acting according to law and the Constitution, cases should not be thrown out, because another is coming up.
ALL cases should be handled according to law and Constitution. Some type of statement that the case would be held and possible combined (or whatever the legal equivalent) should be made. Not just tossed with no comment.
I hate to be a nay sayer. But not much the last several years has instilled faith or confidence in the legal system in this country.
We are now ruled by Tyrants.
Likely because of outcome. If just PA, then no change to electoral outcome in Biden’s favor. However, being that 4 states are being sued - that entails (IIRC) 64 electoral votes, which would effect the electoral outcome; and, depending on how the state legislatures respond, could toss this mess into the lap or the U.S. Congress - where Republican delegations outnumber Democrat 27-22.
Here’s part of a good article, imo:
“,,This case presents an extremely important question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by taking—or allowing—non-legislative action to change the election rules that would otherwise govern the appointment of presidential electors. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution provides in pertinent part:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.
Since the nation stands at an important crossroads, the Constitution must be followed, even during inconvenient times that include a pandemic. This is especially true now because lawful elections are at the heart of our constitutional democracy. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to grab power, government officials in the Defendant States of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania apparently usurped the authority given to them by the state legislatures. ....
....but Justice Thomas noted that while the Court has discretion to decline review in other kinds of cases, the Court does not have discretion to decline review in cases within the Court’s original jurisdiction that arise between two or more states. Why is this true? Justice Thomas answers this question by noting that the Constitution, in Article III states that “[i]n all Cases … in which a State shall be [a] Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” This signifies that the Court has no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction, which is given, than to usurp that which is not given (See Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821).”
more
Sadly, I have to agree.
“They will not destroy themselves.”
Except the liberal/democrat justices. They will destroy this country before they will allow Trump another term.
But ACLJ is sloppy and inaccurate.
Associate Justice Thomas did not write in his dissent that the Court does not have discretion to decline review in cases within the Court’s original jurisdiction that arise between two or more states.
Thomas wrote as follows:
"Although we have discretion to decline review in other kinds of cases, see 28 U. S. C. §§1254(1), 1257(a), we likely do not have discretion to decline review in cases within our original jurisdiction that arise between two or more States."
Come on ACLJ, up your game.
Bump
15 minutes and counting . . .
Well there is little doubt PA broke the law, its own constitution and the federal constitution.
WI also did not treat all ballots the same, where some Dem counties were breaking the law to “cure” ballots while others followed the law... so clearly ballots were not treated universally the same in that state.
Mi and Ga, may be guilty of the same sorts of infractions, haven’t read the TX AG complaint, but there is ZERO doubt that WI and PA violated the constitution.
I think they’ve filed their response.
So what happens if those states do not respond?
They get an extension?
What if they want an extension?
What if they run out the clock?
What happens when the clock runs out?
The crooked Sec of State in Georgia, Raffensperger, has been bribed by soros and Bloomberg to say otherwise.
Besides, AG Barr claims h didn't see any irregularities. (I think he must've been drunk since before the election)
“Permission to file a lawsuit.”
Good grief!
That amounts to JACK SQUAT!
It is 3pm EST
I’m going to take a nap and await the evening bombshells.. Signing off ...
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.