|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,411
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,411 |
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. The incentive for Texas not to leave the Union is to not become the northernmost state in Mexico. Louisiana just joined Texas in the suit. Two down, 48 more to go.
The degree of my privacy is no business of yours.
What we've learned from history is that we haven't learned from it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,916
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,916 |
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. The incentive for Texas not to leave the Union is to not become the northernmost state in Mexico. Louisiana just joined Texas in the suit. Two down, 48 more to go. Link?
3825 24336
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,794
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,794 |
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. The incentive for Texas not to leave the Union is to not become the northernmost state in Mexico. Ha! Without the dead weight of all you other worthless [bleep] we’d be in control of our own borders and could take care of the Mexicans and more worthless interlopers from states like Arizona.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2020
Posts: 5,240
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2020
Posts: 5,240 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,914
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,914 |
Thing is the supremes have to take it up because it is between states and that old yellow piece of paper says they have to take it up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,411
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,411 |
The degree of my privacy is no business of yours.
What we've learned from history is that we haven't learned from it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 17,065
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 17,065 |
In short Texas is suing the state's that have defaulted on integrity for constitutional breeches.
Exploitive Yeah!
A really good use of lawyers.
When you play in a federal contest your state rules can be examined by many..
Effing "weak link" states.
Like the stupid cowering translator in "Saving Private Ryan"..
Rant....
-OMotS
"If memory serves fails me..."
Quote: ( unnamed) "been prtty deep in the cooler todaay "
Television and radio are most effective when people question little and think even less.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 486
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 486 |
[quote=conrad101st]I question the logic of the lawsuit on one simple thought; where is Texas’ “standing” to challenge the internal affairs of another state. My bet is SC tell Texas “Nice try hombre but no bueno. “
My thought exactly. To establish standing you normally have to allege the fact of damage. Since Texas, as a state, cannot vote for any candidate in any election, how have its rights been damaged? I could see Trump having standing, I could even see individual citizens having standing, but Texas has no vote, ergo no injury. Another thing-- the 14th Amendment equal protection clause was enacted to protect citizens from arbitrary acts of state governments. I dont think the 14th Amendment has been construed to offer protections to those same governments from the arbitrary acts of other state governments. Better legal minds than mine may have found a path through this quagmire, but I haven't. I wish them all the best, nevertheless.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,859
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,859 |
The TEXAS lawsuit put the USSC in checkmate, and they only have one "legal" / acceptable way to rule in order to keep a CW from happening.
Their refusal to take this lawsuit would breach the contract the states have with the federal government, the Constitution, and then it would be time for citizens to remove the traitors and insert new representatives who will honor their oaths to defend the Constitution and Rule of LAW.
"He is far from Stupid"
”person, who happens to have an above-average level of intelligence”
– DocRocket (In reference to ElkSlayer91)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 274
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 274 |
Others Joining InGrant Stinchfield just reported on it at NewsMax
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 486
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 486 |
I just read the motion for preliminary injunction filed by Texas where it lays out its standing argument. The argument is that individual states are represented by their senators, while the individuals in those states are represented by their congressmen (sic). Because the illegal votes being challenged diminish the weight of Texas's elector's votes toward the election of the VPOTUS, who is the president of the senate and constitutional tie-breaker, they diminish Texas's rights as a state, not just as a collection of individuals. Like I said, better legal minds than mine. It will be interesting to see how far this goes. I hope for the best but plan for the worst.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 47,130
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 47,130 |
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. The incentive for Texas not to leave the Union is to not become the northernmost state in Mexico. Ha! Without the dead weight of all you other worthless [bleep] we’d be in control of our own borders and could take care of the Mexicans and more worthless interlopers from states like Arizona. Texas would have no problem overrunning Mexico and making it part of Tx.
God bless Texas-----------------------
Old 300
I will remain what i am until the day I die- A HUNTER......Sitting Bull
Its not how you pick the booger..
but where you put it !!
Roger V Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,204
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,204 |
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. The incentive for Texas not to leave the Union is to not become the northernmost state in Mexico. Ha! Without the dead weight of all you other worthless [bleep] we’d be in control of our own borders and could take care of the Mexicans and more worthless interlopers from states like Arizona. Texas would have no problem overrunning Mexico and making it part of Tx. Damn right and maybe not a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,150
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,150 |
Mexico is praying Texas stays part of the Union.
Yup.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 16,957
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 16,957 |
Well done, Adirondack69. Oh ye of few posts, very succinct post.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,794
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,794 |
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. The incentive for Texas not to leave the Union is to not become the northernmost state in Mexico. Ha! Without the dead weight of all you other worthless [bleep] we’d be in control of our own borders and could take care of the Mexicans and more worthless interlopers from states like Arizona. Texas would have no problem overrunning Mexico and making it part of Tx. Frick it. I don’t care if he is right. I’d trade every Yankee in the state right now for two Mexicans. If we’re going to be in a banana republic, I’d rather be in one run by Mexicans than Yankees.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 4,576
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 4,576 |
I'm sure if the powers to be find a way to side step what Texas has done there will be other actions taken and are likely already planned. If you remember reading the Declaration of Independence the grievances were all listed for the king to read. That set the stage. Texas just set the stage. I hope Missouri joins them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 40,179
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 40,179 |
It’s my understanding scotus turned down Pennsylvania for the Texas suit because it’s much broader in scope.
Son of a liberal: " What did you do in the War On Terror, Daddy?"
Liberal father: " I fought the Americans, along with all the other liberals."
MOLON LABE
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 255
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 255 |
Thank you Texas! Trump won Michigan. No one here wanted Biden. Mail in vote was a scam to cheat. Wayne county pure cheating. Our executive branch here are criminal!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,966
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,966 |
Would like to see Florida jump in as well...
Coyotes shot no waiting.
|
|
|
|
|
608 members (12344mag, 007FJ, 1beaver_shooter, 10gaugemag, 02bfishn, 160user, 61 invisible),
2,908
guests, and
1,229
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,347
Posts18,468,794
Members73,928
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
