Kobach: Texas Case Challenges Election Directly at Supreme Court

even if ALL late absentee ballots in PA are thrown out, Biden still wins PA.

sigh...

 

HO HO HO ... MERRY CHRISTMAS ! ​

 

Similar document submitted by select PA Senators asking the S.C. to tell state courts and executive officials that they cannot usurp the power of the legislature.

 

Everyone waited 'til the last minute possible. Now the docket is getting flooded with new filings.

Looks like Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin got in just under the wire. Latest filings list:

 

Perhaps states should have stuck with the election laws written in their state constitutions by the state legislators instead of running ad hoc last minute changes.

This isn't really about Trump v Biden now. It's about averting a constitutional crisis and restoring faith in the integrity of our elections.

 

SCOTUS should give Trump a win, by throwing out all late absentee ballots in PA.

Biden still wins PA, but at least Trump gets his little win.

 

Soon grasshopper, soon. It shouldn't take long, possibly fewer than 18 words unless some bitch slapping is coming. The longer it takes the more worried the Texas AG should get.

 

~ Exactly.

~ You miss the point. "Trump" does not get anything. " The people " do .

 

if Trump wins, The People lose

 

Half of The People disagree. lol

 

How can the Supreme Court of the state userp the Legislature when they are only interpreting the laws THEY enacted ?

My god. the right wing in this country is literally trying to userp the will of the voters as they post this BS.

 

I think Ohio probably has it right. The S.C. should set straight whether the Elections Clause gives sole power to the state legislators over election laws...or not. I believe it clearly does. If the S.C. agrees that the constitution means what it says it means, then the S.C. does not propose or try to compel any solution (which is what Texas is asking). They simply clarify that state legislators have all the power over any state courts or elected executives. No legislation from the court bench or with executive orders. That gives the legislators the rightful power to hold special legislative sessions up through the first week of January and decide if they wish to select an independent slate of electors...or not.

 

no, less than half

 

~ Once again - this is not about "Trump".
Sadly Trump Hate Syndrome distorts thinking ...

 

that cant be so.

what if the legislature passes a new rule that is clearly discriminatory or absurd?

court has to be able to review.

 

You missed the election. The People have spoken, but you're right, Trump does not get anything.

 

The PA state supreme court made a legislative decision, not a interpretive decision.

Many of the files added to the docket are asking the S.C to clarify the interpretation of Elections Clause only. They are suggesting that in all four states that state elected officials and/or state courts usurped the power of the state legislatures. The S.C. is being asked to clarify if that is actually legal under the Elections Clause or not.

 

Lol. Of course it is. It's about Trump, and the place in his supporters' hearts he holds.

 

Review, yes. Legislate from the bench, no.

 

Maybe for some people, but not for all.

This election has been permanently smudged, thanks to the unconstitutional processes in some states. There is no way to prove or disprove "fraud" or to get an accurate vote count, so we'll never know who really won the election. It's very possible that Biden won; it's also possible that Trump won.

So, we go with Biden probably, but the U.S. Election Clause definitely needs to be clearly and distinctly defined before one more election happens.

 

Now 109 U.S. Representatives have filed a document requesting that the S.C. grant Texas the leave it has requested to file a complaint.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...vania Amicus Brief of 106 Representatives.pdf

 

sometimes its neccessary

 

In the PA case, the SC actually agreed with the legislature, because the 10,00 votes were not counted. The legislature wanted the SC to vacate the election, which they did not do.

Show me the law that allows them to do that AFTER the election DID follow the rules ?

 

No. Legislating from the bench is unconstitutional. That should have been pretty clear without needing clarification from the highest court in the land, but judges have become politicized and have been illegally going beyond their roles as "interpreters of law". That needs to be stopped now, since it has not been before now.