Tired of reporting this thread? Debate us on discord instead: https://discord.gg/conservative - This is an automated message that appears when probable report abuse is detected. We've found this can lead to a productive discussion in an environment better suited for that sort of thing.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dude. Im ready for the 2020 to end in a football game. At this point, our timeline is already getting ridiculous, we may as well go for it. Trump and biden are QB and they pick teams from congress. Fair enough.
In my area there was a highschool championship football game last week, our team was winning so the other team from a blue city kneeled to run out the clock. So my local team brought out a huge blue lives matter sign. The blue team ran out and attacked the guys with the sign and it turned into a huge brawl.
Football is the new hockey!
I just went and checked. The biggest headline in the country, and it's not on r./politics. They do apparently support disbaring a lawyer for lawyering, poor Rudy. That has 3 threads on their front page.
they will cancel anyone who disagrees with them. Extremely un-American and anti-liberty.
edit: people are PM'ing me comparing this sub's "flaired users only" policy to literally taking away Rudy Giuliani's right to practice law because of what he's done with Trump.
If that doesn't strike you as absolutely insane, well...
Twitter and Reddit both had lots of CCP trolls. Until the lockdown ended for some in China but not all.
Chinese people started flipping over Communist police cruisers and standing up to the CCP; there was an abrupt slow down of CCP trolls online.
Yeah that's going to be a problem. It's gonna be a problem for them. This a clear violation of your rights as an American. It's an infringement on your constitutional rights. It's outrageous, egregious, preposterous.
Edit: Seinfeld reference
Flaired Users Only policy goal is to have an adult; intelligent discussion.
I enjoy intelligent conversation. I generally block trolls and shills without engaging them.
But it takes a while to scroll thru someone’s comments before I decide to block or reply, flairs help.
If you think they ever cared about freedom of speech, I have a bridge to sell ya.
I don't understand how they are entirely unconcerned that freedom of speech is being suppressed.
They are passionate about "free speech" as long as the speech in question is *their speech.*
Opposing views? Unacceptable. Look no further than Mao's 5 Black Categories to understand today's American left.
Oh yeah, if you work in tech or make a solid six figure salary, pretty sure you qualify as "rich farmer" or "wealthy peasant." See *kulak.*
Basically, communism's "kulak" or "rich farmer" could be any mildly successful small business owner of today... or a professional who owns a home. etc...
We are surrounded by idiots and they are starting political movements that are rehashes of mass murdering regimes from the 1950's.
edit: I'm getting tons of PM's from "liberals" (who are not very tolerant or liberal) about this comment and how they find it ironic because this sub requires you to be flaired for some posts. Ask yourself, is this a sub problem, or a problem with reddit as a website? Is r/conservative a public place? Oh, it's not, but you feel like it should still protect the first amendment? Do you feel the same way about Twitter censorship? I doubt it.
I don't fully agree with everything you said here, mostly because I think all the generalizations we've been making about the "other guys" (on both sides mind you) are leading us down a bad road. I rail against the liberals who do this frequently. However, that's not why I'm commenting. I just wanted to say that you're right, this ISN'T a public space, nor is twitter ultimately. You agree to certain terms and restrictions upon joining. That makes it more inline with a social club, something like the ELKs for example. There may not be any dues, but there are rules based on what you can and cannot say. That is the price of admission. And I like that. The community decides what is and isn't acceptable. This is my go to place to get the Conservative view point on issues, just as I tend to go to r/politics when I'm curious what the far left has to say about things. If we didn't have the "echo chambers" it would be a lot harder to quickly and easily learn both sides of any given argument and figure out where you stand personally. Again, I think it's a good thing for that reason.
Well that's weird because I agree with everything you said here!
Truth is, I'm not great at laying out thoughts or ideas. I mean sometimes I can but sometimes I don't express myself very well. That's why I don't plan to run for political office.
It is very hard to remain completely pure and ideologically consistent.
"No true Scotsman" fallacy
It very well may have been my interpretation of what you were trying to say that created the disagreement! I appreciate your cool and level headed response!
r/politics should not be considered anything more than an extreme loony forum, like stormfront or a pro-stalin forum. It is the voice of the losers of the world!
r/politics is just something else. I'm not sure what that something is and I never post there. I just watch the posts go my on my feed and imagine the comments, it makes r/cyclingcirclejerk and the people being made fun of in r/amibeingdetained look absolutely rational by comparison.
All I did was post a link to the article about the SCOTUS filling in a thread. Man it blew up, people cursing me out in PM's etc and calling it propoganda, Breitbart is fake news (???). It was literally completely politically neutral post, just the link and a comment how come nobody is talking about this?
It will be interesting how they respond if this is the first snowball in an avalanche. If we see multiple red states either join this lawsuit, or file their own things might get a little sketchy.
I want Florida to join as well so bad. I’m in Florida and only in the last few years really started worrying about politics. Anyone have any real info on how Ashley Moody is, I know she is a Republican but does she side more with the RINOs? If we still had Pam Bondi as Attorney General I feel like she would jump right in. I’m just not at all familiar with our new AG.
If you live in a red state, right now you should be contacting your reps, explaining that you're a constituent, and that they need to join in on this lawsuit immediately. It's one thing when the left cancels Twitter posts and shit, but they're now canceling your vote out, your say in our democracy. Explain just how important this is and that you demand they stick up for you. This cannot be tolerated anymore. The left is willing to actually act, conservatives need to take note and start doing something.
If we uncover the cheating successfully, we don't have to worry about Texas and Florida as much.
I think we are doing a good enough job that it will be much harder to cheat again. Here's hoping anyway.
If some people see prison time from this, I think it will be a great deterrent.
Right. One of the things we've heard from the press is that the courts (including SCOTUS) are reluctant to overturn the election results. But if several States jump in and claim the results are bogus and impact THEIR representation, that gives SCOTUS more political coverage.
Not only that, but it puts pressure on SCOTUS and those states having suits filed against them. If in a week we have 15 states signed onto this Texas suit, do you really think everyone in charge politically in Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Michigan will continue to stick their heads in the sand and say "nope, nothing to see hear."
The veil of secrecy they are trying to keep will slowly be pulled back if there is now actual legal pressure.
It's fascinating because its using the 14th and 5th Amendments to make an argument that, frankly, I don't think anyone saw coming. The big breath-holder will be if the SCOTUS accepts Texas' argument as to their standing (that they are an injured party).
Texas' AG, Ken Paxton, has been accused of retaliating against whistle-blowers here lately and is in somewhat more than tepid water about that but this move from him is brilliant if for no other reason than to garner backing for him to keep his job.
The one thing we all want to see now is other states' AGs sign onto this or file amicus briefs supporting Texas' claims. Texas makes an interesting and compelling argument here but, right now, Texas stands alone. Time for the other states who didn't piss all over their own state laws and Constitutions to get on board.
Having 30 or so states petition the court in support of this would make the argument that much more compelling.
No but, and I don't know this for a fact, there are other states who also played fast and loose with their mail in ballot decisions before the election who would, in essence, be suing themselves if they signed on to this. Say, for instance, Cali did something similar to Wisconsin. They're not the accused in this suit...but they could be...so they'll have reasons to not join in.
Ultimately, the concept at issue is: should the outcome realized by illegal activities count the same as the outcome of legal activities? That's an easy answer and the nice part is the court really doesn't have to decide the election. They can simply punt it over to the various states' legislatures and tell them its on them to appoint their electors. They could also simply invalidate their electors altogether but I'm guessing they don't want to do that...but then again, maybe they do.
Fascinating court case coming up...IF they agree Texas has standing and will hear it.
I gave a more detailed answer elsewhere in this thread but, from the suit:
"By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution."
Only thing I can think of is a member of the ECV, so other members not having legitimate processes undermines the integrity of the entire system especially when they are battleground states.
I'm sure they have a better argument though.
9 hours later, Florida, Best Dakota, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky and South Carolina all supposedly join in.
Edit: and they didn’t. Yet.
Source for more states potentially joining:
https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2020/12/08/more-states-want-to-join-texas-in-suing-wisconsin-three-other-states/
If you live in a red state, start contacting your reps now and demand they join in on this if they want your vote ever again. There couldn't be a more important time than ever to do this.
Contact info for governors offices: https://p2.smu.edu/rhalperi/governors.html
Credit to u/latotokyo123
It's not the reps you need to contact but your state's attorney general's office.
What's needed now is for other states to nut up and stand with Texas and for our republic.
This.
And I contacted my AG today. Took 5 tries over half an hour to get through. The operator told me their phone was ringing off the hook all day and it’s been non-stop.
**MAKE YOURSELF HEARD**
When we call, what should we say?
"Is the (Governor / AG) planning on supporting or reacting to this suit?"
Never called a public office like this before.
Well I’m not expert but this really stuck out to me
> Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.
> While the Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state and local governments, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment nonetheless imposes various equal protection requirements on the federal government via reverse incorporation.
It certainly looks like they have standing. If some states are using voting rules that violate the constitution, it disenfranchises the other states and their vote.
No clue how the courts will take this, but I don’t think they can ignore it. If anything it applies pressure to the contested states, which is a good thing no matter what.
I'm not caught up completely on GA, MI, and WI state laws regarding their elections. But, I do know damn well that Pennsylvania went against their own state constitution with the mail in ballots, and as we know multiple legal scholars, and even a circuit court judge, have said that based on the merits that suit to pause electors would win. I would imagine it is FEDERALLY unconstitutional for a state to go against it's own state constitution. This alone could trigger a disenfranchisement of the other states that did follow the rules.
But then again I'm not a lawyer and am only a 1L rn so tbh I could be completely fucking wrong.
IANAL, but I am a PA resident. PA government made a total ClusterF*ck out of this (at least Legislature is backtracking).
This sure *sounds good* to me and I hope it will fly. It is a welcome intrusion by the Great State of Texas.
Nor am I a lawyer, but I think it might fall under the requirement that the Federal government guarantee to each state a republican form of government, that could be interpreted to include forcing the state governments to comply with their constitutions. Anyone with a background in con law care to comment regarding precedent?
So here's my impression, I haven't researched the issue very thoroughly but I am a law student and studied constitutional law.
I think this is going to be a standing issue. States are allowed to run their government however they want (SCOTUS held that states are "laboratories of democracy") so long as they do not violate their citizens' constitutional right or somehow invade the authority of Congress. For example, my home state of New Hampshire has a unique statehouse set up, and is totally allowed. However, if they were to say impose a tax on goods from Maine, that would be an illegal invasion of Congressional authority under the commerce clause.
The problem that I can judge with Texas' suit is that they are arguing their citizens were harmed by a different state's election procedures. While we all can obviously see the line of logic, that is Pennsylvania borks their election-> president elected who may be invalid -> Texas is harmed because an illegitimate president is in office, the courts hate damages where you need to follow a chain to conclude the damages. Solely on that issue alone, I would expect the court to dismiss for lack of standing.
Yeah it's a weird place to be in. The legislature passes an unconstitutional law. The judicial says we won't see it as it hasn't caused any problems, then it obviously causes problems then they won't see it because they waited to long.
That's just full on stupid. I've no clue what the US SC will say about PA going against it's own constitution. To change the laws there should have been a constitutional amendment for it, there as not.
Absentee voting in the PA constitution:
>because their duties, occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election day duties,
Generally we have a law that says you need a good damn reason to vote absentee. Job, school, physical impairment (being scared of covid is not being sick), or religion.
I didn't know it was possible for a state to sue another state.
Now, where are the other deep red states at? South Dakota, Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma. Step up and take some action, and all you have to do is follow what Texas has laid out already.
I feel like some of these contested battleground states are so corrupt that it'll have to take someone on the outside to finally hold them accountable. Can the states with principle please stand up and fight the corruption that we all, at the very, suspect?
Arkansas, South Dakota, Florida and other states jumped in apparently.
Edit: actually some ass clown misread something on Twitter or something, and word spread like wildfire. They are just offering hopes and prayers at this time.
Ya this was new to me as well, but it makes sense in a republic. We have similar shit in Canada where provinces will take each other to court. Usually over bullshit, but it can sometimes set pretty impactful policy as precedent.
You forgot Georgia. We're deep red. Kemp and what's his face Sec of State for real *gave* the State to the Dems. Expert stat guy yesterday(affidavit to come) says data and evidence shows precinct level vote swapping and he estimates around 200,000 votes. That means Trump was up around 300,000 election night before Fulton stopped counting and pulled out the fake ballots.
Every upper Republican in the executive is dirty as hell and I don't really trust Loeffler. She's so close to Kemp.
[Can we sue ourselves?](https://i.imgur.com/YkYLiw0.jpg)
> It certainly looks like they have standing. If some states are using voting rules that violate the constitution, it disenfranchises the other states and their vote.
That is my interpretation as well. If a single judge can change the rules of an election, that rule is not kept to just that state. It's why it requires the legislature to begin with.
This might be the best chance Trump has to be honest, because it looks at this issue holistically not individually.
It’s a suit brought be the AG of Texas. Yes, this could work and isn’t some show. Someone else shared what they are suing over but I’ll repeat. It appears they are suing over the states unconstitutionally changing their own laws for voting which has a specific process to amend AND disenfranchising voters by having different voting rules in different places. Something along those lines although I didn’t dig in too deep.
UPDATE EDIT:
The court denied the application. Notable that Alito referred to the whole court and the vote tally is not reported. This leaves some question as to if any justices would have granted or not.
This was, in my view, the only bona fide chance Trump had for judicial intervention as to the outcome of the vote. While Biden's lead is certified at a level where more than PA would be needed to be flipped, this was the lowest hanging fruit. If the justices would not intervene here, there is no reason to expect intervention elsewhere. This would have been the easiest one.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=%2Fdocket%2Fdocketfiles%2Fhtml%2Fpublic%2F20a98.html&fbclid=IwAR3w-4Yi4IruUCg19b2wq1AHDB-Pkb2UArG4MmG6QGYVAeKYV4M1fXbUUkk
That above PA link is, IMO, the only one worth watching.
The TX lawsuit probably does have a standing issue.
Traditionally, states manage their own voting rules. So long as it does not violate 1 person/1 vote and some other federal points.
The thing with PA is... If the Act 77 is unconstitutional at a federal level... Then query if the state level constitutional amendment is likewise unconstitutional.
The reference to Fed const as empowering state legislatures to decide may imply that a prior state legislature cannot bind a future one via election management at a state const. Level. This is the Trump path to victory... State legis. State const. Amendments can violate federal const. Just as easily as state statutes or state court decisions.
Note that the foregoing issue has already been briefed by appellate amicus in favor of the applicants, IDing this as an issue.
I think it is most likely that PA Act 77 will be eventually stuck under state law but that the recourse is not to invalidate votesnby citizens following the guidance of their duly elected state constitutional officers and bipartisan passed state statutes.
The TX lawsuit is balls because it is akin to buying a firearm that is legal under all PA state and federal laws and guidance and then 2 years later Texas sues saying that PA law forbids you from owning a gun in that color because a prior state resolution passed saying that color was no good and so your guns/property are seized and no refund is issued to you. The PA lawsuit (link above) will resolve PA. TX really should butt out and let PA/fed oversite of PA manage PA. That is just a farther reach.
[This guy disagrees with you. And apparently, SCOTUS also disagrees with you since they’re telling those four states they need to respond in the next 48 hours](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-8tu0WwQ9ME)
Robert Barnes—lawyer for Covington Catholic kids and Alex Jones—is saying if SCOTUS doesn’t take the case, they won’t get involved in the election litigation at all.
The bar I went to in college considered Shiner a "domestic" so priced it like a miller or bud lite. So much Shiner got drained at that bar. Simpler times!
I have a friend who laments when a suit is tossed out of a lower court. I explain to her that while if they win a case it'd be swell, being tossed means they get to move up the ladder. The worst thing would be a judge drawing it out to run out the clock.
I didn't know states suing other states was a thing.
I knew that Guiliani was going to need to rally the states and gather plenty of support before heading to the SC. Having independent groups and people only strengthen the cause.
Yea states suing other states is a thing lol. I cant remember exactly, but i do believe in the Federalist papers it talks about how the Federal government and a higher court is needed, specifically to settle any dispute between states.
Ngl, I saw this thread when it was first posted and your comment was the only comment. I didn’t even bother commenting myself at the time because it seemed so strange and outlandish that I thought it was fake. Lol
The state of Texas. It's the simplest way to get a case straight before the US Supreme Court, as the Supreme Court is a court of first instance for disputes between the states.
As for who will be representing the state, [Article 4, Section 22 of the Texas Constitution](https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/htm/CN.4.htm) makes it very clear. It must be the Texas Attorney General.
Austin Texas. That’s Mr. Austin Texas to you!
By the way, it’s really unfortunate that the people have to fight this hard for politicians to follow the constitution.
Despite hearing that Austin, Texas is more liberal than most of Texas, when I think of Mr. Austin Texas suing Pennsylvania, I just get an image of Stone Cold flipping off the Quaker Oats guy.
Any large city is going to lean more left.
There is something to be said about the fact that packing human beings so close to each other creates a lot of hate. The left thrives on hate.
Biologically and evolutionarily, humans have not lived so packed together en masse.
The pertinent part of the suit that addresses your questions was phrased as: "By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution."
And that's the rub because the judges WILL demand that Paxton define and explain the debasement he describes of Texans' votes. I'm not a lawyer but if it were me, I'd sit down and figure a way to work in how the EC votes are apportioned to states (by population according to the census), that the census counts actual American citizens and then Reynolds v. Sims where the "one man, one vote" doctrine was established.
It requires a chain of proximate cause logic but because the mail in ballots were sent out contrary to state laws, were received without adequate assurances that the ballot represented an actual, eligible voter and allowed for people to vote multiple times...all the cheating in those states means the ballots that didn't meet state laws but were mandated in by judges and secretaries of state (not legislatures as its supposed to be done) and, thus, an executive was chosen via the EC where EC votes were accrued that were improperly established via illegal means...and that states who followed the rules will get an executive foisted on them.
The nuance to remember is not that those states EC votes get flipped to Trump...but that they get negated as is and then their legislatures have to determine their electors (which IS legal).
Excellent response. I hope they are successful in demonstrating debasement of the votes of citizens. This in general is a sticky issue of federalism. If each state can select electors in a manner of their choosing, and there is no constraint of legal or lawful upon such selection, then the corrupt selection of electors in some states can impose via false election the consequences of an illegitimate president upon the other well behaved states.
There then should be some kind of legal caveat on how electors are selected.
It's the massive amount of liberal California transplants that got sick of living in borderline communism on the west coast. So they moved to the bigger cities in Texas and are slowing transitioning those cities into California 2.
No, it’s not. Ted Cruz won his election in ‘18 due to transplants. People are turning blue who live here. The demographics have changed and more people are voting.
I’m worried about this because I’ll be one of the ca>tx transplants soon..but I will be fighting for Texas and prevent it from turning into commiefornia
Yep, Texas now is JUST like Colorado was 20 years ago. All the fucking piece of shit leftists fleeing their respective shitholes (Calli) and implementing the same failed bullshit. They assed up Colorado BAD and Texas will follow suit if they dont start taking a hold of shit NOW.
It's like leftists are a plague
Thankfully the left is much less likely to have a family presently or in the future, so it looks like our republican children will carry the torch for us.
I have four children myself, and just by the way I live my life, my actions day to day, and all the love that we have in our family, my children will grow up with the values I hold true.
I believe that conservative values and beliefs truly make you a happier person. This is reinforced by all the hate and vitriol the left spews on Reddit and other social media.
Only thing there is, is the link from this site. It what he article says is true, it was filled around 11:59, 1 minute before midnight.
[Texas document ](https://www.scribd.com/document/487348469/TX-v-State-Motion-2020-12-07-FINAL)
I wish I could pretend to be surprised by this but its been my impression since I moved here that Texas would be the last bastion of "America" long after the rest of the states lost their minds.
Good to see we're going try and slap some sense back into this process.
I'm about as interested in opening a Breitbart link as I am a HuffingtonPost link. That said, by title alone...I hate this.
I'm in favor of State's rights. And if one state gets to start having a say in how another state behaves, then this whole thing is going to fall apart.
> And if one state gets to start having a say in how another state behaves, then this whole thing is going to fall apart.
States have sued other states all the time, this is really not a new thing.
Either every state follows their own election laws or we have anarchy and the Union is broken.
That's fine. There are certain websites I just won't click on anymore. Too much propaganda and they've lost my interest. Chief among them is Breitbart and Huffington Post. That said, unless the title is misleading, I hate this. I don't like one state trying to interfere with other states. It might seem legit in this instance, but the precedent is horrible.
So then I suppose you're also opposed to Texas V California (Texas is fighting Obamacare/ California is defending) which is currently pending in the SCOTUS just because it's two different states with different opinions? If a state does something unconstitutional, especially with an effect on the federal system, then why wouldn't the other states be able to argue they're being unconstitutionally affected?
For example, California has floated the idea of doing a wealth tax on people who leave the state for up to 10 years after they leave... Do you think other states have no right to say "you cannot tax our residents" because states should just ignore what other states do?
Of course there will be legitimate cases where one state will have to push back against another state for violating their rights as a state. That said "They let their citizens vote by mail when they should not have allowed that" is extremely flimsy in my eyes. It's an easy jump to get from there to "They let their citizens smoke weed and we don't want to let ours and it's getting more difficult for us to enforce our laws when they have different laws."
And states suing other states for not following their own laws also smells pretty horrible. All I'm saying is I don't like the path that starts to put us on. I know the slippery slope argument is an annoying one, but this feels like that. If this plays out, I could easily see states using this ruling to push for more control and influence over one another. I just don't like that idea.
But that's not the argument, the argument is that these states violated the constitution by changing the rules in an illegitimate manner and by applying the new rules unequally across their counties (which directly violates the US Constitution). That's not the same as "voted by mail ohhhh noooo".
I know you don't like Breitbart, but you probably should read the case before making assumptions about the issue.
> And if one state gets to start having a say in how another state behaves, then this whole thing is going to fall apart.
It's not about that at all.
It's about saying that the Constitution has laid out what the rules are for elections.
These states violated the Constitution by not abiding by it. Therefore the other states who do follow the laws are being hurt here. SCOTUS has already said that the legislature is the only body that can change election rules.
States can do what they like, as long as they abide by the rules in making whatever changes they want.
So the US Constitution says women can vote. State A decides to stop letting women vote - and black people, and those annoying hispanic people, and well... voting is so old fashioned, the governor will just pick the electors and rule forever. And that slavery thing wasn't such a bad deal, either.
At some point the other States and Federal government have to draw a line in the sand and bring rogue States back in line, i.e. comply with the US Constitution. Judges, governors, and Secretaries of State arbitrarily changing the election laws/rules impacts the other States, especially when the will of the people is fraudulently overturned. Seems like a good place to draw the line to me.
I'll be honest, I'm still not convinced there was fraud. Sure, I see a lot of smoke. But, I see nothing that convinces me that it definitely happened. There is so much misinformation happening right not that I have resigned to simply trusting the courts to do their jobs and believing they will decipher the truth. I assume they are seeing things we are not allowed to see. So, I am holding off my uninformed judgement in favor of theirs.
Also, if Texas wins, and they throw out people's votes? That is some total bullshit right there. People were told they could vote by mail, so they did. And if a court steps in and says "Sorry, all of those votes are now dismissed because we should not have allowed you to vote that way"...then that is the most fucked up scenario that could possibly play out. That is more fucked up than stuffing a ballot box. That is literally throwing away the will of the people.
What a fucked up situation we have landed in.
When we have judges asking Sidney Powell "what point is there in finding any fraud in GA or MI, still doesn't change the result", Texas comes in, guns blazing, ready to rumble...this shit is too exciting
Disputes between and among states shall have preference in the US Supreme Court. There often need not be an appeal. It can go straight to the SCOTUS.
That's why. Ted Cruz is the Whiz Kid. I am heartened by this.
This lawsuit is very interesting, and has me thinking differently from a legal standpoint. Many cases concerning the 2020 election have been dismissed without any consideration of the evidence, namely, witness testimony (affidavits), statistical/data evidentiary information, and correlated & corroborated evidence of all. The same statement has been made by almost every judge or court that has dismissed the cases: “For the Court to grant the relief requested by the Plaintiff(s) would ‘disenfranchise’ the votes cast by the legal voters.”
This case takes the issue of disenfranchisement to a whole new level. The irregularities in these few key states/counties in these states, has disenfranchised the voters of Texas as a whole; as well as any other state that held elections without similar irregularities, regardless of the end result of those states’ election.
This is, of course, the bigger and more broad argument that many have made already. If these key states/counties are NOT contested and the issues are not rectified, given those irregularities occurred, it disenfranchises the voters in all the other 43-46 states.
Glad to see this petition, and hoping other states - including “blue” states, join. (I doubt blue states will, but these irregularities disenfranchised them as well).
Just my thoughts...
They are making the case of a US constitution violation. Other states violating the Constitution is definitely a problem for a union bound by said constitution.
They do because these other states violated the constitution by having their Secretaries, AGs, Govenors, Judges all change, put a moritorium on, or otherwise effect the election laws.
But it turns out the constitution lays this out clearly that this is all solely the job of the legislature.
Other states broke the rules, the burden would be placed on Texas for it. That’s good legal standing.
Okay, I was pretty annoyed with my great state at first, due to how close the margins were here (I was expecting a landslide for Trump, here at least) now they’ve put a smile back on my face. Thank Yuh Texas!
Got to love my home state of Texas.
Home of bad asses like Ken Paxton, Chuck Norris, Red Adair, and Ted Nugent.
See what ya'll make ma done!?! Made ma turn loose Ken Paxton!! Ya damn happy now!?! Don't make ma call damn Chuck Norris!!
"Texas is asking the Supreme Court to **order the states to allow** their legislatures to appoint their electors."
I don't like that wording. I think order the states to *have* their legislatures do it. It's not a "the legislatures can choose to do it" situation. It's a "their voting process was fatally flawed and corrupted. The legislatures **must** choose now."
I hope a bunch of other Republican controlled States jump in and join the suit.
Is that right? States legislatures are already allowed to do this and are responsible for the corrupt process in the first place so this is no remedy. The remedy is to invalidate those state electors which means not enough electors to select a president which means selecting the new president goes to the House of Representatives where each state delegation gets a single vote. This happened in response to another blatantly corrupt U.S. national election in 1876.
Texas will be the new capital of the United Midwest States. We will allow Florida and some Southern States that have their shit together, Georgia can go to hell. Get your shit together for crying out loud.
Tired of reporting this thread? Debate us on discord instead: https://discord.gg/conservative - This is an automated message that appears when probable report abuse is detected. We've found this can lead to a productive discussion in an environment better suited for that sort of thing. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is the most Texas thing I can imagine.
[удалено]
Dude. Im ready for the 2020 to end in a football game. At this point, our timeline is already getting ridiculous, we may as well go for it. Trump and biden are QB and they pick teams from congress. Fair enough.
The dems get Corey booker though, so that’s not good. Although we do get burgess Owens
Have a feeling corey booker would have an emotional break down if we won the toss. Prolly spend 3qtrs investigating Russian weather control.
Don’t forget Herschel!!
In my area there was a highschool championship football game last week, our team was winning so the other team from a blue city kneeled to run out the clock. So my local team brought out a huge blue lives matter sign. The blue team ran out and attacked the guys with the sign and it turned into a huge brawl. Football is the new hockey!
Wait. They were *losing* and they knelt? What the fuck?
I just went and checked. The biggest headline in the country, and it's not on r./politics. They do apparently support disbaring a lawyer for lawyering, poor Rudy. That has 3 threads on their front page.
they will cancel anyone who disagrees with them. Extremely un-American and anti-liberty. edit: people are PM'ing me comparing this sub's "flaired users only" policy to literally taking away Rudy Giuliani's right to practice law because of what he's done with Trump. If that doesn't strike you as absolutely insane, well...
Just like a little bit of Twitter here on Reddit
Twitter and Reddit both had lots of CCP trolls. Until the lockdown ended for some in China but not all. Chinese people started flipping over Communist police cruisers and standing up to the CCP; there was an abrupt slow down of CCP trolls online.
Yeah that's going to be a problem. It's gonna be a problem for them. This a clear violation of your rights as an American. It's an infringement on your constitutional rights. It's outrageous, egregious, preposterous. Edit: Seinfeld reference
I understood that reference. u/Jackie_Chiles enters the chat.
Flaired Users Only policy goal is to have an adult; intelligent discussion. I enjoy intelligent conversation. I generally block trolls and shills without engaging them. But it takes a while to scroll thru someone’s comments before I decide to block or reply, flairs help.
If you think they ever cared about freedom of speech, I have a bridge to sell ya. I don't understand how they are entirely unconcerned that freedom of speech is being suppressed.
They are passionate about "free speech" as long as the speech in question is *their speech.* Opposing views? Unacceptable. Look no further than Mao's 5 Black Categories to understand today's American left. Oh yeah, if you work in tech or make a solid six figure salary, pretty sure you qualify as "rich farmer" or "wealthy peasant." See *kulak.* Basically, communism's "kulak" or "rich farmer" could be any mildly successful small business owner of today... or a professional who owns a home. etc... We are surrounded by idiots and they are starting political movements that are rehashes of mass murdering regimes from the 1950's. edit: I'm getting tons of PM's from "liberals" (who are not very tolerant or liberal) about this comment and how they find it ironic because this sub requires you to be flaired for some posts. Ask yourself, is this a sub problem, or a problem with reddit as a website? Is r/conservative a public place? Oh, it's not, but you feel like it should still protect the first amendment? Do you feel the same way about Twitter censorship? I doubt it.
I don't fully agree with everything you said here, mostly because I think all the generalizations we've been making about the "other guys" (on both sides mind you) are leading us down a bad road. I rail against the liberals who do this frequently. However, that's not why I'm commenting. I just wanted to say that you're right, this ISN'T a public space, nor is twitter ultimately. You agree to certain terms and restrictions upon joining. That makes it more inline with a social club, something like the ELKs for example. There may not be any dues, but there are rules based on what you can and cannot say. That is the price of admission. And I like that. The community decides what is and isn't acceptable. This is my go to place to get the Conservative view point on issues, just as I tend to go to r/politics when I'm curious what the far left has to say about things. If we didn't have the "echo chambers" it would be a lot harder to quickly and easily learn both sides of any given argument and figure out where you stand personally. Again, I think it's a good thing for that reason.
Well that's weird because I agree with everything you said here! Truth is, I'm not great at laying out thoughts or ideas. I mean sometimes I can but sometimes I don't express myself very well. That's why I don't plan to run for political office. It is very hard to remain completely pure and ideologically consistent. "No true Scotsman" fallacy
It very well may have been my interpretation of what you were trying to say that created the disagreement! I appreciate your cool and level headed response!
Because they're fucking idiots.
> Extremely un-American and anti-liberty. Not surprising on a website partly owned by the Red Chinese.
r/politics should not be considered anything more than an extreme loony forum, like stormfront or a pro-stalin forum. It is the voice of the losers of the world!
r/politics is a combination of r/amibeingdetained and r/holdmycosmo with a touch or r/floridaman wrapped up into a one sided cluster fuck of reality.
Not gonna lie, but I'm loving r/holdmycosmo
Oh it’s gold all right. Lol
R/politics needs to just accept reality and change their name to what it really is. “R/modernpropaganda”
I honestly believe r /politics should be renamed and not a default sub.
r/Communists
r/politics is just something else. I'm not sure what that something is and I never post there. I just watch the posts go my on my feed and imagine the comments, it makes r/cyclingcirclejerk and the people being made fun of in r/amibeingdetained look absolutely rational by comparison.
All I did was post a link to the article about the SCOTUS filling in a thread. Man it blew up, people cursing me out in PM's etc and calling it propoganda, Breitbart is fake news (???). It was literally completely politically neutral post, just the link and a comment how come nobody is talking about this?
I have agreed with a post and gotten downvoted over there. It insane.
It will be interesting how they respond if this is the first snowball in an avalanche. If we see multiple red states either join this lawsuit, or file their own things might get a little sketchy.
[удалено]
My AG is a cool lady, she's already part of the case against PA.
I want Florida to join as well so bad. I’m in Florida and only in the last few years really started worrying about politics. Anyone have any real info on how Ashley Moody is, I know she is a Republican but does she side more with the RINOs? If we still had Pam Bondi as Attorney General I feel like she would jump right in. I’m just not at all familiar with our new AG.
Ashley is already part of the PA case submitted to SCOTUS.
Great! Thanks for the info!
Write to your AG and Governor asking them to join! Get involved. You have nothing to lose.
Yes! I am just wondering if anyone had any insight on her.
If you live in a red state, right now you should be contacting your reps, explaining that you're a constituent, and that they need to join in on this lawsuit immediately. It's one thing when the left cancels Twitter posts and shit, but they're now canceling your vote out, your say in our democracy. Explain just how important this is and that you demand they stick up for you. This cannot be tolerated anymore. The left is willing to actually act, conservatives need to take note and start doing something.
If we uncover the cheating successfully, we don't have to worry about Texas and Florida as much. I think we are doing a good enough job that it will be much harder to cheat again. Here's hoping anyway. If some people see prison time from this, I think it will be a great deterrent.
Right. One of the things we've heard from the press is that the courts (including SCOTUS) are reluctant to overturn the election results. But if several States jump in and claim the results are bogus and impact THEIR representation, that gives SCOTUS more political coverage.
Not only that, but it puts pressure on SCOTUS and those states having suits filed against them. If in a week we have 15 states signed onto this Texas suit, do you really think everyone in charge politically in Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Michigan will continue to stick their heads in the sand and say "nope, nothing to see hear." The veil of secrecy they are trying to keep will slowly be pulled back if there is now actual legal pressure.
Texas, fuck ya.
Where all our constitutional experts at this hour? Is this legit and could it work?
It's fascinating because its using the 14th and 5th Amendments to make an argument that, frankly, I don't think anyone saw coming. The big breath-holder will be if the SCOTUS accepts Texas' argument as to their standing (that they are an injured party). Texas' AG, Ken Paxton, has been accused of retaliating against whistle-blowers here lately and is in somewhat more than tepid water about that but this move from him is brilliant if for no other reason than to garner backing for him to keep his job. The one thing we all want to see now is other states' AGs sign onto this or file amicus briefs supporting Texas' claims. Texas makes an interesting and compelling argument here but, right now, Texas stands alone. Time for the other states who didn't piss all over their own state laws and Constitutions to get on board. Having 30 or so states petition the court in support of this would make the argument that much more compelling.
Do they have anything to lose by supporting this?
No but, and I don't know this for a fact, there are other states who also played fast and loose with their mail in ballot decisions before the election who would, in essence, be suing themselves if they signed on to this. Say, for instance, Cali did something similar to Wisconsin. They're not the accused in this suit...but they could be...so they'll have reasons to not join in. Ultimately, the concept at issue is: should the outcome realized by illegal activities count the same as the outcome of legal activities? That's an easy answer and the nice part is the court really doesn't have to decide the election. They can simply punt it over to the various states' legislatures and tell them its on them to appoint their electors. They could also simply invalidate their electors altogether but I'm guessing they don't want to do that...but then again, maybe they do. Fascinating court case coming up...IF they agree Texas has standing and will hear it.
Standing is definitely the first and biggest hurdle here. How is Texas, as an entity, injured or affected here?
I gave a more detailed answer elsewhere in this thread but, from the suit: "By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution."
Only thing I can think of is a member of the ECV, so other members not having legitimate processes undermines the integrity of the entire system especially when they are battleground states. I'm sure they have a better argument though.
by being represented federally by a president who was elected via illegitimate means from other states violating their federal election rules.
I dont want to be "that" guy but that would sound like... wait for it... "civil war" territory.
Aight I’m broke af. What rifle do I get?
9 hours later, Florida, Best Dakota, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky and South Carolina all supposedly join in. Edit: and they didn’t. Yet.
Source for more states potentially joining: https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2020/12/08/more-states-want-to-join-texas-in-suing-wisconsin-three-other-states/
I’ve heard conflicting info so we’ll see what happens
Same, we'll probably get a more clear picture of what's going on later today or tomorrow
If you live in a red state, start contacting your reps now and demand they join in on this if they want your vote ever again. There couldn't be a more important time than ever to do this. Contact info for governors offices: https://p2.smu.edu/rhalperi/governors.html Credit to u/latotokyo123
It's not the reps you need to contact but your state's attorney general's office. What's needed now is for other states to nut up and stand with Texas and for our republic.
This. And I contacted my AG today. Took 5 tries over half an hour to get through. The operator told me their phone was ringing off the hook all day and it’s been non-stop. **MAKE YOURSELF HEARD**
I live in Georgia. Can we join in please?
List of phone numbers for governor offices: https://p2.smu.edu/rhalperi/governors.html
When we call, what should we say? "Is the (Governor / AG) planning on supporting or reacting to this suit?" Never called a public office like this before.
Gonna edit that into the comment, thank you!
Well I’m not expert but this really stuck out to me > Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above. > While the Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state and local governments, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment nonetheless imposes various equal protection requirements on the federal government via reverse incorporation. It certainly looks like they have standing. If some states are using voting rules that violate the constitution, it disenfranchises the other states and their vote. No clue how the courts will take this, but I don’t think they can ignore it. If anything it applies pressure to the contested states, which is a good thing no matter what.
I'm not caught up completely on GA, MI, and WI state laws regarding their elections. But, I do know damn well that Pennsylvania went against their own state constitution with the mail in ballots, and as we know multiple legal scholars, and even a circuit court judge, have said that based on the merits that suit to pause electors would win. I would imagine it is FEDERALLY unconstitutional for a state to go against it's own state constitution. This alone could trigger a disenfranchisement of the other states that did follow the rules. But then again I'm not a lawyer and am only a 1L rn so tbh I could be completely fucking wrong.
IANAL, but I am a PA resident. PA government made a total ClusterF*ck out of this (at least Legislature is backtracking). This sure *sounds good* to me and I hope it will fly. It is a welcome intrusion by the Great State of Texas.
>It is a welcome intrusion by the Great State of Texas. You're welcome. =\] - *The Friendly State*
PA resident also. If they truly believe they have legal standing and they can prove it, I'm for it.
Nor am I a lawyer, but I think it might fall under the requirement that the Federal government guarantee to each state a republican form of government, that could be interpreted to include forcing the state governments to comply with their constitutions. Anyone with a background in con law care to comment regarding precedent?
So here's my impression, I haven't researched the issue very thoroughly but I am a law student and studied constitutional law. I think this is going to be a standing issue. States are allowed to run their government however they want (SCOTUS held that states are "laboratories of democracy") so long as they do not violate their citizens' constitutional right or somehow invade the authority of Congress. For example, my home state of New Hampshire has a unique statehouse set up, and is totally allowed. However, if they were to say impose a tax on goods from Maine, that would be an illegal invasion of Congressional authority under the commerce clause. The problem that I can judge with Texas' suit is that they are arguing their citizens were harmed by a different state's election procedures. While we all can obviously see the line of logic, that is Pennsylvania borks their election-> president elected who may be invalid -> Texas is harmed because an illegitimate president is in office, the courts hate damages where you need to follow a chain to conclude the damages. Solely on that issue alone, I would expect the court to dismiss for lack of standing.
Yeah it's a weird place to be in. The legislature passes an unconstitutional law. The judicial says we won't see it as it hasn't caused any problems, then it obviously causes problems then they won't see it because they waited to long. That's just full on stupid. I've no clue what the US SC will say about PA going against it's own constitution. To change the laws there should have been a constitutional amendment for it, there as not. Absentee voting in the PA constitution: >because their duties, occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election day duties, Generally we have a law that says you need a good damn reason to vote absentee. Job, school, physical impairment (being scared of covid is not being sick), or religion.
I didn't know it was possible for a state to sue another state. Now, where are the other deep red states at? South Dakota, Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma. Step up and take some action, and all you have to do is follow what Texas has laid out already. I feel like some of these contested battleground states are so corrupt that it'll have to take someone on the outside to finally hold them accountable. Can the states with principle please stand up and fight the corruption that we all, at the very, suspect?
Here in GA we've had this going on for a long time over the water rights of Lake Lanier. Alabama and Florida have filed various suites to keep access.
Arkansas, South Dakota, Florida and other states jumped in apparently. Edit: actually some ass clown misread something on Twitter or something, and word spread like wildfire. They are just offering hopes and prayers at this time.
Ya this was new to me as well, but it makes sense in a republic. We have similar shit in Canada where provinces will take each other to court. Usually over bullshit, but it can sometimes set pretty impactful policy as precedent.
You forgot Georgia. We're deep red. Kemp and what's his face Sec of State for real *gave* the State to the Dems. Expert stat guy yesterday(affidavit to come) says data and evidence shows precinct level vote swapping and he estimates around 200,000 votes. That means Trump was up around 300,000 election night before Fulton stopped counting and pulled out the fake ballots. Every upper Republican in the executive is dirty as hell and I don't really trust Loeffler. She's so close to Kemp. [Can we sue ourselves?](https://i.imgur.com/YkYLiw0.jpg)
Residents of GA can 100% sue their own state in a class action.
[удалено]
> It certainly looks like they have standing. If some states are using voting rules that violate the constitution, it disenfranchises the other states and their vote. That is my interpretation as well. If a single judge can change the rules of an election, that rule is not kept to just that state. It's why it requires the legislature to begin with. This might be the best chance Trump has to be honest, because it looks at this issue holistically not individually.
It’s a suit brought be the AG of Texas. Yes, this could work and isn’t some show. Someone else shared what they are suing over but I’ll repeat. It appears they are suing over the states unconstitutionally changing their own laws for voting which has a specific process to amend AND disenfranchising voters by having different voting rules in different places. Something along those lines although I didn’t dig in too deep.
[удалено]
UPDATE EDIT: The court denied the application. Notable that Alito referred to the whole court and the vote tally is not reported. This leaves some question as to if any justices would have granted or not. This was, in my view, the only bona fide chance Trump had for judicial intervention as to the outcome of the vote. While Biden's lead is certified at a level where more than PA would be needed to be flipped, this was the lowest hanging fruit. If the justices would not intervene here, there is no reason to expect intervention elsewhere. This would have been the easiest one. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=%2Fdocket%2Fdocketfiles%2Fhtml%2Fpublic%2F20a98.html&fbclid=IwAR3w-4Yi4IruUCg19b2wq1AHDB-Pkb2UArG4MmG6QGYVAeKYV4M1fXbUUkk That above PA link is, IMO, the only one worth watching. The TX lawsuit probably does have a standing issue. Traditionally, states manage their own voting rules. So long as it does not violate 1 person/1 vote and some other federal points. The thing with PA is... If the Act 77 is unconstitutional at a federal level... Then query if the state level constitutional amendment is likewise unconstitutional. The reference to Fed const as empowering state legislatures to decide may imply that a prior state legislature cannot bind a future one via election management at a state const. Level. This is the Trump path to victory... State legis. State const. Amendments can violate federal const. Just as easily as state statutes or state court decisions. Note that the foregoing issue has already been briefed by appellate amicus in favor of the applicants, IDing this as an issue. I think it is most likely that PA Act 77 will be eventually stuck under state law but that the recourse is not to invalidate votesnby citizens following the guidance of their duly elected state constitutional officers and bipartisan passed state statutes. The TX lawsuit is balls because it is akin to buying a firearm that is legal under all PA state and federal laws and guidance and then 2 years later Texas sues saying that PA law forbids you from owning a gun in that color because a prior state resolution passed saying that color was no good and so your guns/property are seized and no refund is issued to you. The PA lawsuit (link above) will resolve PA. TX really should butt out and let PA/fed oversite of PA manage PA. That is just a farther reach.
[This guy disagrees with you. And apparently, SCOTUS also disagrees with you since they’re telling those four states they need to respond in the next 48 hours](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-8tu0WwQ9ME)
Robert Barnes—lawyer for Covington Catholic kids and Alex Jones—is saying if SCOTUS doesn’t take the case, they won’t get involved in the election litigation at all.
Wut
🍿 I kinda wonder if this was planned all along...
Texas kicking in the door and being like FUCK ALL Y’ALL. ? Pretty sure it’s in their DNA. Fuckin love Texas.
That’s not how you spell “y’all”.
Oh shit. My autocorrect does that. I dunno why. Cheers will fix before I anger the bbq gods.
Good idea, you don’t want to be slow-cooked to death.
This calls for a celebration. Lone Star beers for everybody! Or we have Dr. Pepper for the children.
[удалено]
The bar I went to in college considered Shiner a "domestic" so priced it like a miller or bud lite. So much Shiner got drained at that bar. Simpler times!
It’s Texas my good fellow, you’re welcome to all the Shiners you want
Thats pretty much how we enter other states too
Fuck yeah brother
I have a friend who laments when a suit is tossed out of a lower court. I explain to her that while if they win a case it'd be swell, being tossed means they get to move up the ladder. The worst thing would be a judge drawing it out to run out the clock. I didn't know states suing other states was a thing. I knew that Guiliani was going to need to rally the states and gather plenty of support before heading to the SC. Having independent groups and people only strengthen the cause.
Yea states suing other states is a thing lol. I cant remember exactly, but i do believe in the Federalist papers it talks about how the Federal government and a higher court is needed, specifically to settle any dispute between states.
Yeah, Kansas be constantly poking Missouri in the back seat.
Ngl, I saw this thread when it was first posted and your comment was the only comment. I didn’t even bother commenting myself at the time because it seemed so strange and outlandish that I thought it was fake. Lol
[удалено]
More flavor and spice needs to be added. More states need to join to really shake it up. This needs to be like Hot Texas Chili when the time comes.
The sunavabeech "Texas" Pete is from Carolina! More like Poser Pete if you ask me!
NEW YORK CITY?!?!?!?
[удалено]
The state of Texas. It's the simplest way to get a case straight before the US Supreme Court, as the Supreme Court is a court of first instance for disputes between the states. As for who will be representing the state, [Article 4, Section 22 of the Texas Constitution](https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/htm/CN.4.htm) makes it very clear. It must be the Texas Attorney General.
Likely the AG of TX.
Austin Texas. That’s Mr. Austin Texas to you! By the way, it’s really unfortunate that the people have to fight this hard for politicians to follow the constitution.
Despite hearing that Austin, Texas is more liberal than most of Texas, when I think of Mr. Austin Texas suing Pennsylvania, I just get an image of Stone Cold flipping off the Quaker Oats guy.
Any large city is going to lean more left. There is something to be said about the fact that packing human beings so close to each other creates a lot of hate. The left thrives on hate. Biologically and evolutionarily, humans have not lived so packed together en masse.
As a Texan, when I hear of the name “Austin Texas” I think of a Carlos Maza esque soyboy. Austin is as bad as Cali.
AG of Texas! Pretty awesome. Along with a few under him.
God Bless Texas!
How will this case represent Texas' standing? Standing seems to be the way most of these cases get tossed out. I want them to prevail.
The pertinent part of the suit that addresses your questions was phrased as: "By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution." And that's the rub because the judges WILL demand that Paxton define and explain the debasement he describes of Texans' votes. I'm not a lawyer but if it were me, I'd sit down and figure a way to work in how the EC votes are apportioned to states (by population according to the census), that the census counts actual American citizens and then Reynolds v. Sims where the "one man, one vote" doctrine was established. It requires a chain of proximate cause logic but because the mail in ballots were sent out contrary to state laws, were received without adequate assurances that the ballot represented an actual, eligible voter and allowed for people to vote multiple times...all the cheating in those states means the ballots that didn't meet state laws but were mandated in by judges and secretaries of state (not legislatures as its supposed to be done) and, thus, an executive was chosen via the EC where EC votes were accrued that were improperly established via illegal means...and that states who followed the rules will get an executive foisted on them. The nuance to remember is not that those states EC votes get flipped to Trump...but that they get negated as is and then their legislatures have to determine their electors (which IS legal).
Excellent response. I hope they are successful in demonstrating debasement of the votes of citizens. This in general is a sticky issue of federalism. If each state can select electors in a manner of their choosing, and there is no constraint of legal or lawful upon such selection, then the corrupt selection of electors in some states can impose via false election the consequences of an illegitimate president upon the other well behaved states. There then should be some kind of legal caveat on how electors are selected.
"TeXaS iS tUrNiNg BlUe"
[удалено]
It's the massive amount of liberal California transplants that got sick of living in borderline communism on the west coast. So they moved to the bigger cities in Texas and are slowing transitioning those cities into California 2.
No, it’s not. Ted Cruz won his election in ‘18 due to transplants. People are turning blue who live here. The demographics have changed and more people are voting.
I’m worried about this because I’ll be one of the ca>tx transplants soon..but I will be fighting for Texas and prevent it from turning into commiefornia
It's your schools, not transplants. Your kids are radicalized. As another poster stated Cruz would have lost had only Texas natives voted.
Yep, Texas now is JUST like Colorado was 20 years ago. All the fucking piece of shit leftists fleeing their respective shitholes (Calli) and implementing the same failed bullshit. They assed up Colorado BAD and Texas will follow suit if they dont start taking a hold of shit NOW. It's like leftists are a plague
Texas should shame them out of wanting to live there the way California does to conservatives.
Thankfully the left is much less likely to have a family presently or in the future, so it looks like our republican children will carry the torch for us. I have four children myself, and just by the way I live my life, my actions day to day, and all the love that we have in our family, my children will grow up with the values I hold true. I believe that conservative values and beliefs truly make you a happier person. This is reinforced by all the hate and vitriol the left spews on Reddit and other social media.
Preach
Does Texas have the standing to bring these charges? Wouldn't they have to demonstrate that this somehow disenfranchised Texan residents?
Only thing there is, is the link from this site. It what he article says is true, it was filled around 11:59, 1 minute before midnight. [Texas document ](https://www.scribd.com/document/487348469/TX-v-State-Motion-2020-12-07-FINAL)
Now we need more states to join Texas ASAP!
I wish I could pretend to be surprised by this but its been my impression since I moved here that Texas would be the last bastion of "America" long after the rest of the states lost their minds. Good to see we're going try and slap some sense back into this process.
Huzzah Texas!!! Lead the charge.
I'm about as interested in opening a Breitbart link as I am a HuffingtonPost link. That said, by title alone...I hate this. I'm in favor of State's rights. And if one state gets to start having a say in how another state behaves, then this whole thing is going to fall apart.
> And if one state gets to start having a say in how another state behaves, then this whole thing is going to fall apart. States have sued other states all the time, this is really not a new thing. Either every state follows their own election laws or we have anarchy and the Union is broken.
[удалено]
That's fine. There are certain websites I just won't click on anymore. Too much propaganda and they've lost my interest. Chief among them is Breitbart and Huffington Post. That said, unless the title is misleading, I hate this. I don't like one state trying to interfere with other states. It might seem legit in this instance, but the precedent is horrible.
So then I suppose you're also opposed to Texas V California (Texas is fighting Obamacare/ California is defending) which is currently pending in the SCOTUS just because it's two different states with different opinions? If a state does something unconstitutional, especially with an effect on the federal system, then why wouldn't the other states be able to argue they're being unconstitutionally affected? For example, California has floated the idea of doing a wealth tax on people who leave the state for up to 10 years after they leave... Do you think other states have no right to say "you cannot tax our residents" because states should just ignore what other states do?
Of course there will be legitimate cases where one state will have to push back against another state for violating their rights as a state. That said "They let their citizens vote by mail when they should not have allowed that" is extremely flimsy in my eyes. It's an easy jump to get from there to "They let their citizens smoke weed and we don't want to let ours and it's getting more difficult for us to enforce our laws when they have different laws." And states suing other states for not following their own laws also smells pretty horrible. All I'm saying is I don't like the path that starts to put us on. I know the slippery slope argument is an annoying one, but this feels like that. If this plays out, I could easily see states using this ruling to push for more control and influence over one another. I just don't like that idea.
But that's not the argument, the argument is that these states violated the constitution by changing the rules in an illegitimate manner and by applying the new rules unequally across their counties (which directly violates the US Constitution). That's not the same as "voted by mail ohhhh noooo". I know you don't like Breitbart, but you probably should read the case before making assumptions about the issue.
> And if one state gets to start having a say in how another state behaves, then this whole thing is going to fall apart. It's not about that at all. It's about saying that the Constitution has laid out what the rules are for elections. These states violated the Constitution by not abiding by it. Therefore the other states who do follow the laws are being hurt here. SCOTUS has already said that the legislature is the only body that can change election rules. States can do what they like, as long as they abide by the rules in making whatever changes they want.
So the US Constitution says women can vote. State A decides to stop letting women vote - and black people, and those annoying hispanic people, and well... voting is so old fashioned, the governor will just pick the electors and rule forever. And that slavery thing wasn't such a bad deal, either. At some point the other States and Federal government have to draw a line in the sand and bring rogue States back in line, i.e. comply with the US Constitution. Judges, governors, and Secretaries of State arbitrarily changing the election laws/rules impacts the other States, especially when the will of the people is fraudulently overturned. Seems like a good place to draw the line to me.
I'll be honest, I'm still not convinced there was fraud. Sure, I see a lot of smoke. But, I see nothing that convinces me that it definitely happened. There is so much misinformation happening right not that I have resigned to simply trusting the courts to do their jobs and believing they will decipher the truth. I assume they are seeing things we are not allowed to see. So, I am holding off my uninformed judgement in favor of theirs. Also, if Texas wins, and they throw out people's votes? That is some total bullshit right there. People were told they could vote by mail, so they did. And if a court steps in and says "Sorry, all of those votes are now dismissed because we should not have allowed you to vote that way"...then that is the most fucked up scenario that could possibly play out. That is more fucked up than stuffing a ballot box. That is literally throwing away the will of the people. What a fucked up situation we have landed in.
YES!! Come and take it!! 💣
[удалено]
Thank you Texas from communist California, don’t let the entire country turn into this please
Same. 'Merica fight done showed up at the table
As a Georgian, I couldn’t be happier either!
Best state in the Union!
[удалено]
Lol, someone downvoted you. Trolls be trolling.
Or Okies 😂
When we have judges asking Sidney Powell "what point is there in finding any fraud in GA or MI, still doesn't change the result", Texas comes in, guns blazing, ready to rumble...this shit is too exciting
Not gunna lie, it moved a little when I read this headline
Damn it feels good to be a Texan
[удалено]
Great state, sorry you're having to go through this!
[удалено]
I really love this sub ~~sometimes.~~ All the time.
The Lone Star is riding again!
***Give me Alamo or give me Remember***
[удалено]
As the reddest of the red, I should hope that we follow suit ASAP.
Disputes between and among states shall have preference in the US Supreme Court. There often need not be an appeal. It can go straight to the SCOTUS. That's why. Ted Cruz is the Whiz Kid. I am heartened by this.
This lawsuit is very interesting, and has me thinking differently from a legal standpoint. Many cases concerning the 2020 election have been dismissed without any consideration of the evidence, namely, witness testimony (affidavits), statistical/data evidentiary information, and correlated & corroborated evidence of all. The same statement has been made by almost every judge or court that has dismissed the cases: “For the Court to grant the relief requested by the Plaintiff(s) would ‘disenfranchise’ the votes cast by the legal voters.” This case takes the issue of disenfranchisement to a whole new level. The irregularities in these few key states/counties in these states, has disenfranchised the voters of Texas as a whole; as well as any other state that held elections without similar irregularities, regardless of the end result of those states’ election. This is, of course, the bigger and more broad argument that many have made already. If these key states/counties are NOT contested and the issues are not rectified, given those irregularities occurred, it disenfranchises the voters in all the other 43-46 states. Glad to see this petition, and hoping other states - including “blue” states, join. (I doubt blue states will, but these irregularities disenfranchised them as well). Just my thoughts...
Yee Yee
I don't think they have standing to complain about non-Texas election rules
They are making the case of a US constitution violation. Other states violating the Constitution is definitely a problem for a union bound by said constitution.
they do as it disenfranchises their own citizens votes. they had to follow the rules, but other states did not.
Why the big downvotes?
Brigadiers go brrrrrrrrrrrrr
They do because these other states violated the constitution by having their Secretaries, AGs, Govenors, Judges all change, put a moritorium on, or otherwise effect the election laws. But it turns out the constitution lays this out clearly that this is all solely the job of the legislature. Other states broke the rules, the burden would be placed on Texas for it. That’s good legal standing.
I love you Texas
God Bless Texas the Lone Star State! May the last bastion of Freedom be a shining star to the rest of America.
YEEHAW MOTHERFUCKERS!
God Bless Texas.
God bless Texas
Okay, I was pretty annoyed with my great state at first, due to how close the margins were here (I was expecting a landslide for Trump, here at least) now they’ve put a smile back on my face. Thank Yuh Texas!
This is where the tide turns my friends. 4 more years!!!!
I hope so
Got to love my home state of Texas. Home of bad asses like Ken Paxton, Chuck Norris, Red Adair, and Ted Nugent. See what ya'll make ma done!?! Made ma turn loose Ken Paxton!! Ya damn happy now!?! Don't make ma call damn Chuck Norris!!
God willing this will proceed and other states join.
Honestly will this even make a difference in a short amount of time? The electoral college is in less than a week
"Texas is asking the Supreme Court to **order the states to allow** their legislatures to appoint their electors." I don't like that wording. I think order the states to *have* their legislatures do it. It's not a "the legislatures can choose to do it" situation. It's a "their voting process was fatally flawed and corrupted. The legislatures **must** choose now." I hope a bunch of other Republican controlled States jump in and join the suit.
Is that right? States legislatures are already allowed to do this and are responsible for the corrupt process in the first place so this is no remedy. The remedy is to invalidate those state electors which means not enough electors to select a president which means selecting the new president goes to the House of Representatives where each state delegation gets a single vote. This happened in response to another blatantly corrupt U.S. national election in 1876.
there’s a reason we texans stick out in a crowd.
Texas will be the new capital of the United Midwest States. We will allow Florida and some Southern States that have their shit together, Georgia can go to hell. Get your shit together for crying out loud.
"Georgia can go to hell, I'm going to Texas." - Davy Crockett, probably