And the question remains the same; Will any court take on a decision that nullifies the elections on those states?
What are the odds??????????????????????? 30/70?
$64 million dollar Q.
MM
Well, they are on notice. The reason this case is very significant is because it sets the stage for articles of secession or a list of grievances. Texas is telling the court that they don’t think that the election is legitimate and it is giving the court an out to set aside the popular election on very narrow constitutional grounds. If the court refuses to set it aside, then it is essentially asking Texas and all these other states to abide by an election they do not think is legitimate.
So, what is the incentive for Texas or any other state to remain in a union where illegitimate elections become the norm?
This suit fights fire with fire. The court may not want to be seen as deciding an election. On the other hand, if it refuses to do anything, it is lighting the fuse of secession.
The middle ground and easy way out for the court, and the path asked for in the complaint, is to simply let the legislatures decide this one. It’s constitutional and the court doesn’t even have to decide if fraud occurred. It can simply agree with Texas and argue that the laws weren’t followed. Constitutional crises averted for now.
Agreed on all accounts; I guess we'll know soon enough.
If the SCOTUS agrees & the state legislatures provide electors that eventually confirm DJT, things are going to get real interesting, real fast, & maybe get the direction of the country settled, at least for a while, as I don't think a repeat of last summer's festivities is going to be allowed to go on unabated.
MM
**** Indeed.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
But I sure don't think that the judiciary of any sort will not put partisanship away long enough to rule in favor of the constitution.
That's my fear................but if it goes directly to SCOTUS & they agree to even hear it, we con only hope that there are 5 people there that have not been bought & have enough integrity to uphold the Constitution.
But it is surely not a slam dunk, by any means, although it really should be.
MM
Gotta figure Roberts has been in the fetal position since the minute papers were filed.
The current suit is just asking for a restrain from those states for counting. Those states would be thrown out until the case could be heard. If they rule that way, there is no way wrinkly balls could currently have enough votes to get him in. The inauguration would be delayed.
At whatever point it would go to trial with evidence presented. If evidence is shown, then the court would uphold their ruling that those states would be tossed, and it would go to the legislature, as provided by the constitution.
The sticky point would be if the court now rules to hold the count on those states, but later does not see enough evidence to uphold that.
But, with at least 5 judges thinking with their head removed from their ass, is should be pretty clear cut.
Sen Ted Cruz yesterday, volunteered to argue the case before the Supremes
"All that the South has ever desired was that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved, and that the government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth." – Robert E. Lee
The current suit is just asking for a restrain from those states for counting. Those states would be thrown out until the case could be heard. If they rule that way, there is no way wrinkly balls could currently have enough votes to get him in. The inauguration would be delayed.
At whatever point it would go to trial with evidence presented. If evidence is shown, then the court would uphold their ruling that those states would be tossed, and it would go to the legislature, as provided by the constitution.
The sticky point would be if the court now rules to hold the count on those states, but later does not see enough evidence to uphold that.
But, with at least 5 judges thinking with their head removed from their ass, is should be pretty clear cut.
I believe you have presented an accurate and sound synopsis of the current situation.
+1
"All that the South has ever desired was that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved, and that the government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth." – Robert E. Lee
I believe any state can join Texas in this single lawsuit. Sounds logical.
"All that the South has ever desired was that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved, and that the government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth." – Robert E. Lee
One of my fave things about Texans, they don’t shy away from a fight.
God bless Texas !
And may God bless the USA
I'm pretty certain when we sing our anthem and mention the land of the free, the original intent didn't mean cell phones, food stamps and birth control.
But I sure don't think that the judiciary of any sort will not put partisanship away long enough to rule in favor of the constitution.
That's my fear................but if it goes directly to SCOTUS & they agree to even hear it, we con only hope that there are 5 people there that have not been bought & have enough integrity to uphold the Constitution.
But it is surely not a slam dunk, by any means, although it really should be.
MM
Ageed, but as I read it, there is no "if" it goes to SCOTUS. It is a direct pipeline to settle disputes between states, no middle level activist or chickenshit judges. It is there, no BSing around.
Now, it will be telling whether SCOTUS accepts or denies taking the case.
At least 28 other states should join in .... we could all be Texans!
Texas would no longer be the second largest state. (Sorry, I couldn't resist).
The biggest fear that the Court has is if someone has another Andy Jackson moment and tells them to stuff it. That’s how the Court loses its power. This case by Texas now forces them to make a choice BUT it gives them a narrow constitutional path to claim that they aren’t making that choice, just merely calling back on the procedures outline by the Constitution for matters like this.
When you boil it down, the actions that flipped this election WERE unconstitutional.
But I sure don't think that the judiciary of any sort will not put partisanship away long enough to rule in favor of the constitution.
They didn't go to all the time, trouble and expense to steal the election, only to have success ripped from their grasp...
Hasn’t Steve Abbott talked about convening a constitutional convention of states in the past? Could this be the next step? Surly enough states are feeling disenfranchised enough to want to see force put on the federal government.
Rush is presenting the 2001 Supreme Court ruling that one Florida County violated the equal protection clause of election law, by treating ballots differently than all other counties. He says this gives the Supreme Court precedent to rule in favor of the Texas lawsuit.
"All that the South has ever desired was that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved, and that the government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth." – Robert E. Lee
