SCOTUS Flips Trump the Bird

I dont think even you believe the crap you post.

 

If thats what you really truely think, then you have to feel bad that someone in THAT bad of shape was still able to achieve far more votes than the Orange Julias.

 

No they did. Read the opinion for comprehension:

"The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution."

You asked me to read Article II, maybe you should read Article III, you know, the part of the Constitution that grants authority to the FEDERAL judiciary (i.e. JURISDICTION to review the legal merits of a case).

Why are you paraphrasing out of context? Is it because you're trying to peddle your legal fantasy?

"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections."

What should really be of great concern to all Americans is an act of sedition being perpetrated by many of the highest authorities in our pretend government. What should be of great concern to all Americans is that SCOTUS could have ruled that one state can dictate the election laws and enforcement to another state by filing a lawsuit, a total assault on the 10th Amendment.

 

If a state wants to elect its governor or head dog catcher by a beer-drinking contest or a dance-off, that's its right. States' rights issue. When it comes to the position of a national elected office and they decide to break their own rules, in contravention of the Constitution of the United States which exists to protect every American from the abuses of government, the impact of that legally nebulous act spills across state lines and has the effect of invalidating the votes of the rest of us. No American should accept that. This is the beginning of the end of the republic. The 10th Amendment DOES NOT ALLOW STATES TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES thereby abusing citizens of other states. I don't know how many more times I have to say it.

 

I am not the topic of this thread.

 

None - the Supreme Court heard your "argument" and said, "No, sister ... back that noise up and go home."

 

fallacy, ad hominem: I did not argue before the court.

Fallacy, argumentum ad verecundiam: The opinion of the court does not render the facts invalid.

 

Fallacy, internet rumors are "facts".

 

You can say it ten thousand times if it makes you feel better, it still doesn't make your fanciful "legal" theory true. SCOTUS does not often issue rulings that make sense but in this case they definitely did. SCOTUS does not have Article III power (original jurisdiction) to review the merits of a case specifically where one state wants to decide the election laws of another state that have not been disputed within the judiciary of the state in question. This is clearly prohibited by the 10th Amendment and limited by powers granted to the federal judiciary in Article III.

 

When one state can dictate law to another, that is the end of a republic.

And the Court most certainly did say it's not a federal issue.

Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

 

And they have been disputed within all four states. Many, many times. And in the case of PA, by the SCOTUS, three days ago.

The states are the ultimate authority on election law, not the federal government, and most certainly not through original jurisdiction. The argument that Trump losing disenfranchises everyone is some peculiar stuff.

 

Internet rumors? Straw man. Do you dispute that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania changed its election laws in violation of the Constitution of the United States?
Article II, Ss. 1: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..."

Did the legislature of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania direct the changes to the balloting procedures in that state? I'll answer for you: No it did not. Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar ordered substantive material changes to PA's election law such as allowing ballots to be counted without matching signatures, counting mail-in ballots several days after election day, and counting in mail-in ballots without postmarks. She lacked the authority to make these changes. Both the Constitution of the Unites States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania affirm that she lacked the authority to make these changes. But the changes were made, the ballots were counted, and here we are with an election that no American can honestly say was conducted fairly and in accordance with the law.

 

Are you saying the election laws of each of the 4 states in question have recently been disputed (prior to this election) within each of the respective states (and I don't mean by Trump sycophants)? Can you provide some examples?

 

Disputed was a poor choice of words. As was the term election laws.

No, that's not what I meant. I'm referring to the clown show, but noting that election procedure is governed by election law which is subject to each state's constitution.

The power to hold elections resides with the states, and any procedure, law or ruling on such is in accordance with the states' constitutions. The SCOTUS cannot overrule these state decisions without violating the US Constitution and state sovereignty. The PA supreme court is the final arbiter on PA election law, and it has already ruled.

 

I can honestly say that the PA election was conducted fairly and in accordance with the law.
My EVIDENCE? The Secretary of State certified the results.

 

The same secretary of state who unlawfully changed the election laws to allow for all kinds of ballot irregularities. Fallacy, argumentum ad verecundiam

 

Non sequitur.
Right back at you. Prove it. Cite a decision or show some EVIDENCE.

 

Not even a little. My rebuttal followed exactly your fallacious argument that an official act is evidence if anything.

Evidence is prima facie: Did said secretary of state change election laws unilaterally? Yes. Was such act within her authority? No. This was not some covert act at midnight... it was done right jn the open for all to see. Article 2 Ss. 1 is unequivocal: the state legislature has the sole authority to direct the appointment of electors in their respective state. Not the governor, not the attorney general, and not the secretary of state. But the legislature and only the legislature. No one person has the ability to change the rules for a presidential election.

That is evidence of at least misfeasance, if not outright corruption.

 

Your specious argument regarding the appointment of electors ignores the fact that PA’s electors actually have been chosen by the legislature. The election laws passed by the legislature proscribe that the winner of the popular vote results in the electors nominated by the winning candidate voting when the Electoral college meets.

No order or opinion or finding has found malfeasance or corruption in the voting process and the result has been certified. Prima facie fails in the face of a certified election result. It is your burden to prove your accusation with EVIDENCE, of which you have none.

 

Did SOS Boockvar of PA change the voting rules in PA this year? Yes. This is documented, in the open. Does that office have the authority to direct elections in the commonwealth? No. Only the legislature has that authority. Your argument says "yes, I saw that car run a red light. But the cops didn't pull the driver over and write a ticket. That car didn't run a red light."

 

Using your anecdote, yes, the car didn’t run a red light until a competent authority believes me and makes finding a fact.

By the way, the standard for establishing fraud is “clear and convincing” evidence. Your imagination, accusation, or affidavit doesn’t meet that standard.

You keep coming back to the legislature and the election. As of this minute, the election was fair and legal and conducted as per the law passed by the legislature including the certification.

 

So, now all you need is an injured party. Millions of people voted in PA. Surely you could find one who was injured because of the SOS action? If not, it doesn't matter what you think, nor does it matter that PA may have violated some law. The only people with standing are PA voters, and from what I can tell, they're all happy. Sorry, doesn't matter what you think nor what Texas thinks. The People of PA are the only ones who matter here, and they couldn't care less about your inability to accept reality. Neither do I.

Argumentum ad correctus.

 

Only if you live on Pluto... you saw with your own eyes the car run the red light. Now you are going to sit here and tell me it didn't... unless an agent of the state says so?

Strawman: I have made no claim of fraud in our discussion, nor have I made any claims of the things you fallaciously claimed I have. Please do not try to move the goalposts again... with your imagination.

That is where you are factually incorrect. The legislature did not properly make the changes to the election laws in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania -- the secretary of state did, unilaterally, and well outside the authority of the office.

 

Baby steps.

Ok, so me seeing the car run a red light endows me with some knowledge. So what ? Nothing will happen to the driver until the authority tasked with traffic enforcement accepts it and does something about it. Now what ?

You claim Secretary of State changed the election laws of the State of PA. You say it is "documented". Prove it. Cite an opinion, order or decision. In this case,
the car didn't run the red light.

 

You are wrong, wrong and wrong.

• Wherever possible, SCOTUS defers to state courts on constitutional/election issues.
• The PA Supreme Court has ruled that there was nothing unlawful or unconstitutional about the ballot-receipt deadline extension.
• No law was changed - the Supreme Court of PA granted temporary emergency relief for this election only.
• The election code permits courts and the governor to make such orders when circumstances require, to protect the right to vote.
• Hence, county courts and the governor extended deadlines by a week for the June primaries - odd, no one whined and complained back then.
• All other challenges to PA election practices have been ruled perfectly constitutional and consistent with statutes.