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

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

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

The constitution does not clearly dictate the manner in which states hold elections.

The state courts are responsible for determining if the states in question followed the states laws.

It is fairly simple, which is why SCOTUS could deny the TX case with such alacrity - they know the constitution and the law.

[TheOneX]

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.

How in the hell would this expand their power into elections? They already have that power, and have always had that power. They are the judicial branch it is their power to rule if something is legal or illegal. When the legality of an election is in question it is their duty to rule on if it was legal or not.

The real reason they are not taking it or are unwilling to give the proper relief is because they care more about not upsetting people than they care about the rule of law and justice.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

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.

How in the hell would this expand their power into elections? They already have that power, and have always had that power. They are the judicial branch it is their power to rule if something is legal or illegal. When the legality of an election is in question it is their duty to rule on if it was legal or not.

The real reason they are not taking it or are unwilling to give the proper relief is because they care more about not upsetting people than they care about the rule of law and justice.

The constitution is clear on who has the authority to determine how electors are chosen. It isn't SCOTUS. They have not 'always had this power.' For SCOTUS to reach over the heads of the state courts in a matter over which the constitution clearly gives the states authority is a huge expansion of SCOTUS power. This is basic, entry-level Federalism.

If all they care about is not upsetting people, they are doing a bad job, 'cause y'all seem upset.

[TheOneX]

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.

How in the hell would this expand their power into elections? They already have that power, and have always had that power. They are the judicial branch it is their power to rule if something is legal or illegal. When the legality of an election is in question it is their duty to rule on if it was legal or not.

The real reason they are not taking it or are unwilling to give the proper relief is because they care more about not upsetting people than they care about the rule of law and justice.

The constitution is clear on who has the authority to determine how electors are chosen. It isn't SCOTUS. They have not 'always had this power.' For SCOTUS to reach over the heads of the state courts in a matter over which the constitution clearly gives the states authority is a huge expansion of SCOTUS power. This is basic, entry-level Federalism.

If all they care about is not upsetting people, they are doing a bad job, 'cause y'all seem upset.

You are starting off with the wrong assumption of what is being asked and of what the law says. This is why you are coming to the wrong conclusions.

1. The Constitution is very clear that it is the state legislatures who decide how electors are chosen. The governors and the state courts do not have any power to choose electors beyond the power given to them by the state legislatures.
2. They are asking that the courts rule the elections were held in an illegal manner, and send it to state legislatures to choose the electors. They are not asking SCOTUS to choose the electors. The state legislatures could easily choose Biden electors.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

How in the hell would this expand their power into elections? They already have that power, and have always had that power. They are the judicial branch it is their power to rule if something is legal or illegal. When the legality of an election is in question it is their duty to rule on if it was legal or not.

The real reason they are not taking it or are unwilling to give the proper relief is because they care more about not upsetting people than they care about the rule of law and justice.

The constitution is clear on who has the authority to determine how electors are chosen. It isn't SCOTUS. They have not 'always had this power.' For SCOTUS to reach over the heads of the state courts in a matter over which the constitution clearly gives the states authority is a huge expansion of SCOTUS power. This is basic, entry-level Federalism.

If all they care about is not upsetting people, they are doing a bad job, 'cause y'all seem upset.

You are starting off with the wrong assumption of what is being asked and of what the law says. This is why you are coming to the wrong conclusions.

1. The Constitution is very clear that it is the state legislatures who decide how electors are chosen. The governors and the state courts do not have any power to choose electors beyond the power given to them by the state legislatures.
2. They are asking that the courts rule the elections were held in an illegal manner, and send it to state legislatures to choose the electors. They are not asking SCOTUS to choose the electors. The state legislatures could easily choose Biden electors.

The state legislatures ARE ALREADY CHOOSING THE ELECTORS. They are choosing the electors based on the results of the vote, as the states in question require according to state laws. It is the state courts remit to decide if the vote was held in a legal way, not SCOTUS.

[The Conservative]

The constitution is clear on who has the authority to determine how electors are chosen. It isn't SCOTUS. They have not 'always had this power.' For SCOTUS to reach over the heads of the state courts in a matter over which the constitution clearly gives the states authority is a huge expansion of SCOTUS power. This is basic, entry-level Federalism.

If all they care about is not upsetting people, they are doing a bad job, 'cause y'all seem upset.

You are starting off with the wrong assumption of what is being asked and of what the law says. This is why you are coming to the wrong conclusions.

1. The Constitution is very clear that it is the state legislatures who decide how electors are chosen. The governors and the state courts do not have any power to choose electors beyond the power given to them by the state legislatures.
2. They are asking that the courts rule the elections were held in an illegal manner, and send it to state legislatures to choose the electors. They are not asking SCOTUS to choose the electors. The state legislatures could easily choose Biden electors.

The state legislatures ARE ALREADY CHOOSING THE ELECTORS. They are choosing the electors based on the results of the vote, as the states in question require according to state laws. It is the state courts remit to decide if the vote was held in a legal way, not SCOTUS.

You are either being obtuse on purpose, or you are just fucking dense. I am not sure whIch.

The Judicial branch can't change constitutional law just because you don't like the way things turn out.

It is clear cut. You can't accept votes outside of a specific date, States have changed that.

They have broken constitutional law.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

You are either being obtuse on purpose, or you are just fucking dense. I am not sure whIch.

Fucking dense like a fox.

[The Conservative]

You are either being obtuse on purpose, or you are just fucking dense. I am not sure whIch.

Fucking dense like a fox.

Thank you.

The judicial of the state changed the law. It's as simple as that.

If SCOTUS can't change the law, then neither can state judicial systems.

The reason it was brought to the SCOUTS was to reverse the illegal judicial orders at the state level.

Is that in plain English enough for you?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

You are either being obtuse on purpose, or you are just fucking dense. I am not sure whIch.

Fucking dense like a fox.

Thank you.

The judicial of the state changed the law. It's as simple as that.

If SCOTUS can't change the law, then neither can state judicial systems.

The reason it was brought to the SCOUTS was to reverse the illegal judicial orders at the state level.

Is that in plain English enough for you?

Your command of English, as well as your legal reasoning, remain as incomprehensible as ever.

The laws of the states dictate that legislators choose electors based on a popular vote. If there were laws that were broken, the standing is with citizens of the state, and the venue is the state court.

It was brought to SCOTUS because Trump and TX don't like that the state courts consistently rejected claims that any law was broken. SCOTUS found that neither had standing to do this.

Presumably, to paraphrase Hash, you know better than SCOTUS. Would that I were not so dang dense, I might know better than them as well.

[The Conservative]

Fucking dense like a fox.

Thank you.

The judicial of the state changed the law. It's as simple as that.

If SCOTUS can't change the law, then neither can state judicial systems.

The reason it was brought to the SCOUTS was to reverse the illegal judicial orders at the state level.

Is that in plain English enough for you?

Your command of English, as well as your legal reasoning, remain as incomprehensible as ever.

The laws of the states dictate that legislators choose electors based on a popular vote. If there were laws that were broken, the standing is with citizens of the state, and the venue is the state court.

It was brought to SCOTUS because Trump and TX don't like that the state courts consistently rejected claims that any law was broken. SCOTUS found that neither had standing to do this.

Presumably, to paraphrase Hash, you know better than SCOTUS. Would that I were not so dang dense, I might know better than them as well.

I am not debating the legislature has a right to chose the electoral. I am arguing that the constitution has been broken by the judicial branch of the state.