SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in cases between states
I'm not saying they do not have jurisdiction or that they're not capable of answering these questions, tbh.
I'm just saying that since this centers around state laws, the court certainly has the authority to tell plaintiffs to litigate their case in State courts first.
“What they did was that the Cons ution provides in the case of a state suing a state you can go directly to the Supreme Court. You don’t have to pass through the circuit court or the district court. The implication is that the court, by making the case Texas vs. Pennsylvania, it sets it up in a way the court has to rule.
“It also puts the court squarely on notice that the case is about unequal treatment of the laws, that a voter in Texas had one set of rules and a voter in Pennsylvania had another set. While the state has the right to set those rules, they don’t have the right to basically devalue the Texans’ vote and throw it out by replacing it with a phony Biden vote.”
Paxton’s plea to the court is that Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Wisconsin must be found to have used the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to manipulate outcomes.
He lost ducks. He lost because he's a ing idiot. It's going to stay that way.
I'm sorry this is happening to you.
right, but the state of texas cant be expected to sue, say, the state of pennsylvania in a pennsylvania state court
SCOTUS shouldnt even entertain this. anything short of a summary denial and all this is going to do is open the floodgates going forward. they need to put the clamps on now
Last edited by spurraider21; 12-09-2020 at 11:14 PM.
Great, how long until fascists start killing politicians and waging terror for Trump?
Matter of when, not if lmho.
Trump has mandate to achieve democratic justice and root out systemic fraud in this country.
what a re ed pic
you get that kind of a mandate by losing by 7 million votes?
So from what I’ve read and heard so far regarding the Texas lawsuit...
-most legal experts do not only find the lawsuit a long shot, but a laughable one
-the Supreme Court does have original jurisdiction over disputes between two or more states
-that original jurisdiction historically has been used for border disputes, enforcement of contracts, or incidents where one state infringes on another, for example, like natural gas from one state crossing the border and affecting the citizens or businesses of another
-the Supreme Court has been reluctant to hear or rule on other types of cases between states
-it’s a curious thing for one state to challenge the voting laws of another, since that’s how it’s been since basically 1789. Cons ution sets broad parameters on voting. The states have always set the more detailed aspects of voting, including how citizens of each state vote, how votes are counted, and how they select the electors
-if Texas alleges that the defendant states unlawfully changed voting rules using the pandemic as an excuse to affect the outcome of the election, then the Texas attorney general should have included the state of Texas as a defendant as well because they also made last minute changes under the guise of adjustments due to the pandemic, including extending early voting by a week and closing and limiting accessibility of mail-in drop-off boxes
The lawsuit should be thrown out. But I will say this. It’s 2020. And if the Supreme Court actually decides to hear the lawsuit, it would not be the craziest thing that happened this year. And if that does happen, for me, it will just signal the Apocalypse. And what will it matter anyway? It will be the ing end of the world.
of course its re ed
he has to somehow cope from the fact that all 4 of muh sidney powell kraken lawsuits about communist vote switching machines with proof from servers seized by the military in germany have been thrown out of court
good summary tbh(except the last bullet point... while i get what you're driving at out of principle, you dont really have to sue everyone who did something wrong as long as they did not cause you legally cognizable harm)
i think the only healthy approach to this would be for SCOTUS to summarily deny cert. once they agree to take this on, its just going to open the floodgates. you'll have avalanches of state to state lawsuits all the time for every midterm and general election
i mean even if they take it on, theres no chance they're going to grant the relief sought, it's just laughable. but that action alone is going to cause headaches for years to come.
Weak man dot com got the goods, huh?
I just don’t click on Trumps raging boner dot com like you do.
To each his own.
You posted gimp echo chamber . It is what it is.
PARLER.COM FTW
What are you crying about, board cuckold?
More of the same.
The MAGA mob won't snap to. They'll double down and get weirder. That's what cults do when reality shows them up.
"can go directly" and "don't have to" doesn't mean "should go directly" and "must not", it's at the discretion of the court.
The whole vote-dilution nonsense of the second quote is that, nonsense. Already struck out of court multiple times. It simply doesn't make sense that the redress for dilution of votes is diluting other votes. Equal protection has never been that.
I'm making fun of you, re .
Because you're a re that thinks he's pwning the board.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
