How much Voter Fraud do you think we will see this year?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Still waiting on Trump's graceful concession.

You don't read as much as you claim.


https://m.theepochtimes.com/trump-appro ... 15492.html?

Trump Approves Filing Retooled Texas-Style Election Challenges: Giuliani

I don't claim to read very much at all. Reading is gay and also for nerds.

I only claim that the only things I know are the things I read.

Anyway, the comment you quoted was in reference to a question I asked earlier in this very thread about what would happen if SCOTUS tossed the TX case. It was predicted that Trump would concede gracefully.

[TheOneX]

I do not know Texas law on how they decide the number of drop box es there are. If Texas's law states that it is the responsibility of the governor to do so then that power is coming from the legislature.

The Texas suit is saying actors in those states acted outside the law in changing the rules. The executives and judges changed the rules without ever being given the power to change the rules.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I do not know Texas law on how they decide the number of drop box es there are. If Texas's law states that it is the responsibility of the governor to do so then that power is coming from the legislature.

The point is that it is for the TX courts to decide, not the SCOTUS.

The Texas suit is saying actors in those states acted outside the law in changing the rules. The executives and judges changed the rules without ever being given the power to change the rules.

For TX to have standing to sue, they have to show harm. Without having proved fraud (and claiming, in fact, that fraud is undetectable - which could be read as unfalsifiable), they can not claim to have been harmed in any way by other states election processes, thus, any illegality that may have taken place, vis election procedures, is entirely an issue for those states and their courts.

[The Conservative]

Still waiting on Trump's graceful concession.

You don't read as much as you claim.


https://m.theepochtimes.com/trump-appro ... 15492.html?

Trump Approves Filing Retooled Texas-Style Election Challenges: Giuliani

I don't claim to read very much at all. Reading is gay and also for nerds.

I only claim that the only things I know are the things I read.

Anyway, the comment you quoted was in reference to a question I asked earlier in this very thread about what would happen if SCOTUS tossed the TX case. It was predicted that Trump would concede gracefully.

They didn't throw out the case entirely. The SCOUTS started a path that could be used.

If there was no legal path, Trump would have conceded. Since he was given a path, he has an avenue to follow and he had a legal right to utilize it.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

They didn't throw out the case entirely. The SCOUTS started a path that could be used.

If there was no legal path, Trump would have conceded. Since he was given a path, he has an avenue to follow and he had a legal right to utilize it.

They did throw the case out entirely.

Not only did they throw it out entirely, but the two justices that said they would have heard the case said they would not have granted the relief sought.

I don't like to make predictions, but I am willing to predict that there is absolutely no path to a second Trump term that winds through SCOTUS.

I am also willing to predict that Trump will not concede gracefully.

[The Conservative]

They didn't throw out the case entirely. The SCOUTS started a path that could be used.

If there was no legal path, Trump would have conceded. Since he was given a path, he has an avenue to follow and he had a legal right to utilize it.

They did throw the case out entirely.

Not only did they throw it out entirely, but the two justices that said they would have heard the case said they would not have granted the relief sought.

I don't like to make predictions, but I am willing to predict that there is absolutely no path to a second Trump term that winds through SCOTUS.

I am also willing to predict that Trump will not concede gracefully.

You just proved again your reading/comprehension leaves suck.

Justices Clarence Thomas joined Alito in stating that they do not believe the court has the authority to outright reject Texas's request, writing instead "I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue."

[TheOneX]

I do not know Texas law on how they decide the number of drop box es there are. If Texas's law states that it is the responsibility of the governor to do so then that power is coming from the legislature.

The point is that it is for the TX courts to decide, not the SCOTUS.

The Texas suit is saying actors in those states acted outside the law in changing the rules. The executives and judges changed the rules without ever being given the power to change the rules.

For TX to have standing to sue, they have to show harm. Without having proved fraud (and claiming, in fact, that fraud is undetectable - which could be read as unfalsifiable), they can not claim to have been harmed in any way by other states election processes, thus, any illegality that may have taken place, vis election procedures, is entirely an issue for those states and their courts.

Don't misunderstand me, I fully understand the reasoning, I'm saying you do not need to prove fraud to prove harm. If the elections were held illegally that is harm in and of itself. No fraud is necessary for there to be harm. It is harmful to society to allow illegal elections to stand.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Justices Clarence Thomas joined Alito in stating that they do not believe the court has the authority to outright reject Texas's request, writing instead "I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue."

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I do not know Texas law on how they decide the number of drop box es there are. If Texas's law states that it is the responsibility of the governor to do so then that power is coming from the legislature.

The point is that it is for the TX courts to decide, not the SCOTUS.

The Texas suit is saying actors in those states acted outside the law in changing the rules. The executives and judges changed the rules without ever being given the power to change the rules.

For TX to have standing to sue, they have to show harm. Without having proved fraud (and claiming, in fact, that fraud is undetectable - which could be read as unfalsifiable), they can not claim to have been harmed in any way by other states election processes, thus, any illegality that may have taken place, vis election procedures, is entirely an issue for those states and their courts.

Don't misunderstand me, I fully understand the reasoning, I'm saying you do not need to prove fraud to prove harm. If the elections were held illegally that is harm in and of itself. No fraud is necessary for there to be harm. It is harmful to society to allow illegal elections to stand.

SCOTUS granting extreme relief, and expanding its authority into state elections in order to stop something that is abstractly 'harmful to society' is a VERY progressive, and activist role for the highest court. Especially given that it is not clear that the election changes were illegal, since the state courts with authority over them have the jurisdiction to interpret those state laws, and most of them have rejected the challenges brought before them.

You can argue SCOTUS should expand its authority in that way, but I reject that your interpretation is the most in line with constitutional rule of law, or that the justices who rejected the TX suit did so from a lack of integrity.

[The Conservative]

The point is that it is for the TX courts to decide, not the SCOTUS.




For TX to have standing to sue, they have to show harm. Without having proved fraud (and claiming, in fact, that fraud is undetectable - which could be read as unfalsifiable), they can not claim to have been harmed in any way by other states election processes, thus, any illegality that may have taken place, vis election procedures, is entirely an issue for those states and their courts.

Don't misunderstand me, I fully understand the reasoning, I'm saying you do not need to prove fraud to prove harm. If the elections were held illegally that is harm in and of itself. No fraud is necessary for there to be harm. It is harmful to society to allow illegal elections to stand.

SCOTUS granting extreme relief, and expanding its authority into state elections in order to stop something that is abstractly 'harmful to society' is a VERY progressive, and activist role for the highest court. Especially given that it is not clear that the election changes were illegal, since the state courts with authority over them have the jurisdiction to interpret those state laws, and most of them have rejected the challenges brought before them.

You can argue SCOTUS should expand its authority in that way, but I reject that your interpretation is the most in line with constitutional rule of law, or that the justices who rejected the TX suit did so from a lack of integrity.

You cannot change how the election happens if it counter clearly defined constitutional law.