Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought conservatives stood for state's rights and sovereignty and had an aversion to judicial activism. Had this gone through every state could sue another over its voter qualification rules. Maybe VA would have then sued TX over its rules for where to drop off ballots. Perhaps it would be prudent to turn to George Mason, a Founder who was an ardent supporter of state's rights and where the Scalia law school is located - he too was an ardent supporter of state's rights.
In the end, they called it right. After all, the folks who were saying that the election was stolen have run for the hills now that they have to put up or shut up in court. To date, there is no proof other than Trump and his supporters utter contempt for free elections.
No, the Supreme Court did its job. I recognize people wanted the Supreme Court to ignore legal procedure for the sake of a particulat outcome, but thankfully it did not.
Sorry, but i'm gonna believe the folks on SCOTUS are more qualified to make a determination about a legal issue than some random interwebz dipstick.
And as a point of reference, I voted for Trump, but it is time to move on.
The only problem is, the Supreme Court never gave its rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections.
By refusing to address and resolve the various violations of our federal Constitution raised in the Texas Bill of Complaint, is to allow even more corruption and voter irregularities into our federal election process, which most assuredly will lead to the kinds of elections which take place in Venezuela, Cuba, etc.
In any event, I see you never attempted to answer the fundamental question: what is the rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?
Well then, what is the Supreme Court's rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?
The only problem is, the Supreme Court never gave its rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections.
By refusing to address and resolve the various violations of our federal Constitution raised in the Texas Bill of Complaint, is to allow even more corruption and voter irregularities into our federal election process, which most assuredly will lead to the kinds of elections which take place in Venezuela, Cuba, etc.
In any event, I see you never attempted to answer the fundamental question: what is the rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?
JWK
Sorry, but that horse is dead. Quit beating it. Your "fundamental question" was put to rest when the SCOTUS said no thanks.
Texas and the other states that signed on to the lawsuit wanted the SC to look into it and they declined.
The fix was in and Biden was handed the win. Trump was a great President with his policies but his personality was a problem and the Lefty media blew the problems out of proportion to damage him.
We all knew what would have happened if Trump had won outright. DC and other cities were already boarded up on election night to prevent the Left from tearing the place apart.
If the SC over turned the election results as they should have, what happened at the Capital on Jan 6th would have been nothing compared to the destruction we would have seen across the country at the hands of angry Democrats.
The SC declined in order to save the country from the grief, the cost, the lives, the violence and potentially a Civil War.
The SC has now allowed any state to violate their own election laws in order to influence an election to turn out as they want it to. Sadly our individual votes no longer really matter.
.
But, the Supreme Court did not have to overturn the election to address and resolve the unconstitutional election activities in the Defendant States. And its failure to address these unconstitutional activities is to willingly allow them to continue. And this is very frightening to those who put faith in our federal election process.
Moloch says it's time to move on. Your premise is that a vast conspiracy happened is nonsensical and was laughed out of court. The Trump loyalists gambled and lost that his personality and supporters would bully their way back into power. Instead they are on the run from the FBI. Trumpistas 0 Moloch 1
The SC has now allowed any state to violate their own election laws[/b] in order to influence an election to turn out as they want it to.
No they didn't.
If the voters of a state believe their state has violated their own election laws, they are free to bring that suit. And, under the right circumstances, their suit could wind up at SCOtUS.
What SCOtUS did was say that it isn't another state's business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd
Sadly our individual votes no longer really matter.
Huh? I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but in a presidential election, our individual votes have NEVER legally mattered.
You have no US Constitutional right to vote for president. Whether or not you as an individual can directly vote for president is entirely up to your state, and how it chooses to determine its Electors.
All states today allow for popular elections for president, and state laws require that their Electors reflect the winner of a popular election. But that has not always been the case, and there is no Constitutional requirement that it should be the case.
It's up to an individual state to determine who can vote for president. And they have wide latitude to do so, the opinions of another state notwithstanding.
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College." https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html I assume that you liked the outcome of this SC case?
Now if you wanna talk about a true national presidential election, I'm all ears. You know, an election where every single individual vote would have exactly the same weight as another's, regardless of the state in which they reside. But that isn't what we have today, and we have never had anything like that, because the framers explicitly didn't want it.
In any event, I see you never attempted to answer the fundamental question: what is the rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing...
Kind of ironic to see this blatant of an attempt at shifting the burden of proof in a thread about legal issues.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
