(12-11-2020 12:01 PM)450bench Wrote:  The question is, who can change or modify a state’s election rules? Who has that authority in said state?

The answer is simple in this case. Someone who did not have the authority to change state election law, changed the election law. That violates the constitution of the state.

Simple as that. If that is truly the case, and it likely is, that states election results could be null and void. Depends on a number of factors.

There. Is. No. Precedent. For. Doing. This.

And there will never be one. In fact, the courts have actually set the precedent the other way, where they do not void election results.

Apparently Texas now has created two new states. New California and New Nevada!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/2...-12-11.pdf

(12-11-2020 12:01 PM)450bench Wrote:  The question is, who can change or modify a state’s election rules? Who has that authority in said state?

The answer is simple in this case. Someone who did not have the authority to change state election law, changed the election law. That violates the constitution of the state.

Simple as that. If that is truly the case, and it likely is, that states election results could be null and void. Depends on a number of factors.

According to the Texas governor he can.

"Abbott’s July order said voters could return their ballots in person to the election clerk’s office earlier. He also extended early voting by six days."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020...s-election

(12-11-2020 12:06 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 12:01 PM)450bench Wrote:  The question is, who can change or modify a state’s election rules? Who has that authority in said state?

The answer is simple in this case. Someone who did not have the authority to change state election law, changed the election law. That violates the constitution of the state.

Simple as that. If that is truly the case, and it likely is, that states election results could be null and void. Depends on a number of factors.

The SCOTUS is most likely going to say those legislatures had time to apply their own remedy, and by not doing so, have implied consent to the actions of their administrators. The legislatures have the ability to nullify their own elections right now. I suspect the SCOTUS will tell them to do that if they wish and tell Texas to pound prairie.

I dont think so. I think the SC is going to tell the legislatures "This is your mess to clean up". I think the SC will say the that the state legislatures being sued "Have the power to fix this issue--and nobody else. Not the the governors, not the State Secretary, not the US Supreme Court, and not the State Supreme Court---ONLY the Legislature has the power to determine how the electors will be selected. It is ultimately entirely up to these legislatures to determine if these state elections were fair and legal---and it is entirely up to the legislature to decide which electors will be appointed." That would be the textualist reading in my opinion.

(12-11-2020 12:24 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 12:01 PM)450bench Wrote:  The question is, who can change or modify a state’s election rules? Who has that authority in said state?

The answer is simple in this case. Someone who did not have the authority to change state election law, changed the election law. That violates the constitution of the state.

Simple as that. If that is truly the case, and it likely is, that states election results could be null and void. Depends on a number of factors.

According to the Texas governor he can.

"Abbott’s July order said voters could return their ballots in person to the election clerk’s office earlier. He also extended early voting by six days."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020...s-election

Another example of what a joke this action is.

(12-11-2020 12:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 12:01 PM)450bench Wrote:  The question is, who can change or modify a state’s election rules? Who has that authority in said state?

The answer is simple in this case. Someone who did not have the authority to change state election law, changed the election law. That violates the constitution of the state.

Simple as that. If that is truly the case, and it likely is, that states election results could be null and void. Depends on a number of factors.

There. Is. No. Precedent. For. Doing. This.

And there will never be one. In fact, the courts have actually set the precedent the other way, where they do not void election results.

Yes. There. Is. It's. Called. Following. The. Law.

Why. Do. You. Talk. Like. This. LeftwingTom?

(12-11-2020 12:49 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 12:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 12:01 PM)450bench Wrote:  The question is, who can change or modify a state’s election rules? Who has that authority in said state?

The answer is simple in this case. Someone who did not have the authority to change state election law, changed the election law. That violates the constitution of the state.

Simple as that. If that is truly the case, and it likely is, that states election results could be null and void. Depends on a number of factors.

There. Is. No. Precedent. For. Doing. This.

And there will never be one. In fact, the courts have actually set the precedent the other way, where they do not void election results.

Yes. There. Is. It's. Called. Following. The. Law.

Why. Do. You. Talk. Like. This. LeftwingTom?

I have to talk slow for you fools...apparently I need to talk slower.

No.
Court.
Is.
Going.
To.
Disenfranchise.
Millions.
Of.
Voters.

PERIOD!

Yea.. We should just drop it. Doesn't matter if Biden cheated, just let it go.

But then again.. I'm reminded of 4 years of Russia Russia Russia.

Gore got to appeal for 37 days.

So f*ck off with your BS. There's not a precedent because this hasn't been done before.

(12-11-2020 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 12:49 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 12:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 12:01 PM)450bench Wrote:  The question is, who can change or modify a state’s election rules? Who has that authority in said state?

The answer is simple in this case. Someone who did not have the authority to change state election law, changed the election law. That violates the constitution of the state.

Simple as that. If that is truly the case, and it likely is, that states election results could be null and void. Depends on a number of factors.

There. Is. No. Precedent. For. Doing. This.

And there will never be one. In fact, the courts have actually set the precedent the other way, where they do not void election results.

Yes. There. Is. It's. Called. Following. The. Law.

Why. Do. You. Talk. Like. This. LeftwingTom?

I have to talk slow for you fools...apparently I need to talk slower.

No.
Court.
Is.
Going.
To.
Disenfranchise.
Millions.
Of.
Voters.

PERIOD!

Incorrect! Slow of mind is the only speed you possess. That's why you talk like you do.

The law isn't about what a court did or will do. The law is the law and courts will do individually whatever they decide to do. If a court's decision stood alone then there would be no need for higher courts. I don't disagree that courts are reluctant to get their hands dirty and enforce laws at times (like this), but that doesn't mean they are following the letter of the law by doing nothing or dumping the case.

Did states like Pennsylvania break the laws as they are written in their state by changing such things as extending the dates that mail in ballots can arrive without going through the proper channels to do so ......Yes they did. By doing so they violated their own state constitution.

Now go on back to your childish way of typing as if you are making some kind of absolute and grandiose commentary.

(12-11-2020 01:07 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Yea.. We should just drop it. Doesn't matter if Biden cheated, just let it go.

But then again.. I'm reminded of 4 years of Russia Russia Russia.

Gore got to appeal for 37 days.

So f*ck off with your BS. There's not a precedent because this hasn't been done before.

There you go again...moving back to the realm of being a dishonest troll...and I had hope lately.

I did not harp Russia for 4 years.

It mattered if Biden cheated, but no one has shown yet that he has. Sorry feels don't count...and that's PRECISELY what you guys said with Russia and impeachment, right?

And yes, there is judicial precedent. Courts have always kicked voting suits back to the legislative branch when there is any chance of voter disenfranchisement.

(12-11-2020 01:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 01:07 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Yea.. We should just drop it. Doesn't matter if Biden cheated, just let it go.

But then again.. I'm reminded of 4 years of Russia Russia Russia.

Gore got to appeal for 37 days.

So f*ck off with your BS. There's not a precedent because this hasn't been done before.

There you go again...moving back to the realm of being a dishonest troll...and I had hope lately.

I did not harp Russia for 4 years.

It mattered if Biden cheated, but no one has shown yet that he has. Sorry feels don't count...and that's PRECISELY what you guys said with Russia and impeachment, right?

And yes, there is judicial precedent. Courts have always kicked voting suits back to the legislative branch when there is any chance of voter disenfranchisement.

The breaking of election laws has directly led to "voter disenfranchisement" of the people and states that did not break election laws.

There is plenty of "proof" of election fraud in this past election. Your reluctance to see or acknowledge any of it doesn't change that fact. Eyewitness testimony is proof that has filled jails several times over, and there are dozens of witnesses throughout the country that have testified to the fraud that took place. To dismiss it is to say that everyone of them is lying without even hearing their case.

(12-11-2020 01:39 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  There is plenty of "proof" of election fraud in this past election. Your reluctance to see or acknowledge any of it doesn't change that fact. Eyewitness testimony is proof that has filled jails several times over, and there are dozens of witnesses throughout the country that have testified to the fraud that took place. To dismiss it is to say that everyone of them is lying without even hearing their case.

If that were the case this "proof" would have already been presented in the 50-some-odd lawsuits Trump & his cronies started that have been thrown out nationwide. What were they thrown out for? Being 'light on facts" and an overall lack of evidence.

Conspiracy theories are just that, folks.

Did these states in question violate their own election law(s)? By rule, it’s likely they did.

What’ll be done? Who knows.

And why did they violate their own election law? Why this election? What made them even evaluate the process? Hmmmmm...

(12-11-2020 01:58 PM)450bench Wrote:  Why this election? What made them even evaluate the process? Hmmmmm...

I'll take a global pandemic causing disruptions to how much people get out in public for $500, Alex.

(12-11-2020 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I have to talk slow for you fools...apparently I need to talk slower.

No.
Court.
Is.
Going.
To.
Disenfranchise.
Millions.
Of.
Voters.

PERIOD!

No, you just have to be more accurate.

The lawsuit is claiming the disenfranchisement of millions of voters, so if it wins (and I'm not saying it will)... then the 'solution' you suggest will happen actually results in the very action you say a court would never take.

IF IT WINS, I think the court either lets the result stand because it can't win either way... which doesn't mean they don't think people were disenfranchised, it just means that the remedy sought is not an improvement (legally).... OR they allow for some sort of limited do-over.... which would be pretty daunting.

So if they expect to change the outcome, the plaintiffs (or justices) are going to have to come up with some way to thread the needle as the court did with the ACA tax. An example (just simple, not necessarily realistic) could come from something like if the court determines that votes counted in GA after 12pm on election day shouldn't have counted, they could order the state to use the numbers reported at that time... Thus the only people being disenfranchised are the ones whose votes shouldn't have counted... or at least this would be the 'least restrictive' outcome... by disenfranchising the fewest people.

Maybe that's why it took a large state like Texas, and one who went AGAINST the named states... to claim disenfranchisement. They certainly wouldn't disenfranchise GA over Montana.

(12-11-2020 02:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I have to talk slow for you fools...apparently I need to talk slower.

No.
Court.
Is.
Going.
To.
Disenfranchise.
Millions.
Of.
Voters.

PERIOD!

The lawsuit is claiming the disenfranchisement of millions of voters...

How so, exactly?

Hold up, let's stop arguing and figure out who "New California" is.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/2...-12-11.pdf

(12-11-2020 02:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The lawsuit is claiming the disenfranchisement of millions of voters...

How so, exactly?
[/quote]

Tom, neither of us are Constitutional lawyers... and your mind wouldn't likely be changed regardless. Further, I'm not personally involved on that side of the argument so I'm not invested in it.... I'm not going to debate it with you.

They argue that voters in the state of Texas (and others), are being denied EQUAL PROTECTION and thus have been disenfranchised. Courts have routinely decided that although elections are under state purview, that they can't simply change rules as they see fit. In the simplest example, Texas can decide to only allow people with a valid ID to vote... but they can't make that change in the months before an election. If they are allowed to do this, it could unconstitutionally change the outcome of the state, and potentially the national result... which would impact everyone.

If you want to know 'how exactly', you can ask one of them or read their filing. All I suggested is that your comment that there is NO WAY is factually inaccurate.... because the INACTION you claim (if the suit is upheld) would do precisely that by placing someone into office under constitutionally invalid election (again, if they win).

If they don't win, then of course they aren't going to overturn the election... but if they DO, are you really suggesting that there is NO WAY they would correct the problem?? As I said, they may have no CHOICE but to throw it out or let it stand... which is why I suggested plaintiffs look for a 'less restrictive' remedy.

Throwing out GA is less restrictive than invalidating the whole thing... but its still a whole lot of disenfranchising going on.

(12-11-2020 02:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 02:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 02:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The lawsuit is claiming the disenfranchisement of millions of voters...

How so, exactly?

Tom, neither of us are Constitutional lawyers... and your mind wouldn't likely be changed regardless. Further, I'm not personally involved on that side of the argument so I'm not invested in it.... I'm not going to debate it with you.

They argue that voters in the state of Texas (and others), are being denied EQUAL PROTECTION and thus have been disenfranchised. Courts have routinely decided that although elections are under state purview, that they can't simply change rules as they see fit. In the simplest example, Texas can decide to only allow people with a valid ID to vote... but they can't make that change in the months before an election. If they are allowed to do this, it could unconstitutionally change the outcome of the state, and potentially the national result... which would impact everyone.

If you want to know 'how exactly', you can ask one of them or read their filing. All I suggested is that your comment that there is NO WAY is factually inaccurate.... because the INACTION you claim (if the suit is upheld) would do precisely that by placing someone into office under constitutionally invalid election (again, if they win).

If they don't win, then of course they aren't going to overturn the election... but if they DO, are you really suggesting that there is NO WAY they would correct the problem?? As I said, they may have no CHOICE but to throw it out or let it stand... which is why I suggested plaintiffs look for a 'less restrictive' remedy.

Throwing out GA is less restrictive than invalidating the whole thing... but its still a whole lot of disenfranchising going on.

Fine, but I see nothing in this suit showing that anything these four states did disenfranchised millions of voters, let alone ONE Texas voter.

Quote:Texas’ attempt to bring an original action challenging the election results in four states is not a serious legal claim in a legitimate procedural posture, for reasons that many people have already given and that I will not repeat here. The easy thing for the Supreme Court to do is simply deny Texas permission to file the complaint (and deny the motions to intervene as moot) and be done with it. No fuss, no muss.

But the court should do more.

The justices’ decision whether to do that needs to account for this extraordinary, dangerous moment for our democracy. President donald trump, other supportive Republicans, and aligned commentators have firmly convinced many tens of millions of people that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. If that view continues to take hold, it threatens not only our national politics for the next four years but the public’s basic faith in elections of all types that are the foundations of our society.

Every once in a long while, the court needs to invest some of its accumulated capital in issuing judgments that are not only legally right but also respond to imminent, tangible threats to the nation. That is particularly appropriate when, as here, the court finds itself being used as a tool to actively undermine faith in our democratic institutions — including by the members of the court’s bar on whom the justices depend to act much more responsibly.

In a time that is so very deeply polarized, I cannot think of a person, group or institution other than the Supreme Court that could do better for the country right now. Supporters of the president who have been gaslighted into believing that there has been a multi-state conspiracy to steal the election recognize that the court is not a liberal institution. If the court will tell the truth, the country will listen.

Opinion: Don’t just deny Texas’ original action. Decimate it.