This Multi-state Lawsuit Will Get a Hearing Before USSC - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

boxcar · 12-09-2020, 11:25 AM

The Texas Lawsuit Is On The Docket – The Supreme Court Will Determine The Fate Of The 2020 Election

Very few of the lawsuits that Trump’s legal team has filed since Election Day have really worried the left, but when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court on Monday night they immediately began freaking out. The reason why they are so alarmed is because they understand that this suit has the potential to flip the election. The suit alleges that the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin conducted their elections in ways that violated the U.S. Constitution, and if the Supreme Court agrees that would almost certainly mean that the Supreme Court would force the state legislatures of those states “to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment”.

At this hour, we are being told that Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina and South Dakota have all joined the suit that Paxton has filed. The U.S. Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over controversies between states, and so this is why this case did not need to be filed in a lower court first. But the Supreme Court is not obligated to hear any particular case, and many on the left initially thought that the Court would never actually agree to hear it.

http://themostimportantnews.com/arch...-2020-election

boxcar · 12-09-2020, 11:46 AM

Who Will Be the Fraud Deniers?

"These are just anomalies. They happen in every election."

Well folks, anomalies cease to be anomalies when they all go in one direction. When every outlier favors Biden, we enter the realm of prima facie fraud.

Fraud.

It's an ugly word.

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...d_deniers.html

JustRalph · 12-09-2020, 11:55 AM

Be careful......walk lightly

__________________
WE ARE THE DUMBEST COUNTRY ON THE PLANET!

davew · 12-09-2020, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Be careful......walk lightly

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/statu...35584371167232

I wonder what group will win ... those that live in the big cities or those that live in the big country?

boxcar · 12-09-2020, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davew

I wonder what group will win ... those that live in the big cities or those that live in the big country?

The big country folks are better shots.

PaceAdvantage · 12-09-2020, 12:20 PM

__________________

@paceadvantage | Support the site and become a

today!

Last edited by PaceAdvantage; 12-09-2020 at 02:31 PM.

lamboguy · 12-09-2020, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boxcar

The Texas Lawsuit Is On The Docket – The Supreme Court Will Determine The Fate Of The 2020 Election

Very few of the lawsuits that Trump’s legal team has filed since Election Day have really worried the left, but when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court on Monday night they immediately began freaking out. The reason why they are so alarmed is because they understand that this suit has the potential to flip the election. The suit alleges that the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin conducted their elections in ways that violated the U.S. Constitution, and if the Supreme Court agrees that would almost certainly mean that the Supreme Court would force the state legislatures of those states “to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment”.

At this hour, we are being told that Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina and South Dakota have all joined the suit that Paxton has filed. The U.S. Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over controversies between states, and so this is why this case did not need to be filed in a lower court first. But the Supreme Court is not obligated to hear any particular case, and many on the left initially thought that the Court would never actually agree to hear it.

http://themostimportantnews.com/arch...-2020-election

the last case was denied 9-0, this one will go down 90-0

boxcar · 12-09-2020, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lamboguy

the last case was denied 9-0, this one will go down 90-0

Was that "last case" heard on its merits? Or was it "denied" before it was heard?

lamboguy · 12-09-2020, 12:48 PM

this fruitcake is suing over states that he has nothing to do with claiming that thee is harm to Texas due to the other states certifying their election results.

Houdini couldn't get this right leaning court to listen to that one in a million years.

these guys are insulting the intelligence of good conservative people that are making these cases up.

TJDave · 12-09-2020, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lamboguy

these guys are insulting the intelligence of good conservative people that are making these cases up.

You couldn’t have said it better.

Marshall Bennett · 12-09-2020, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boxcar

Was that "last case" heard on its merits? Or was it "denied" before it was heard?

Bingo!! The cases were dismissed before real evidence was even close to being introduced. Judges were basically acting as run-of-the-mill district attorneys, throwing out charges before a case ever really came to being.
If the Supreme Court by-passes this "unconstitutional" federal process and is presented with real condemning evidence, the game will dramatically change. If democrats can't lawfully defend the obvious fraud they're seen committing, I see no other path for them to prevail.
Justice served. Now the real battle is staged.
Our county jail is tiny, we'll be taking few prisoners.

boxcar · 12-09-2020, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lamboguy

this fruitcake is suing over states that he has nothing to do with claiming that thee is harm to Texas due to the other states certifying their election results.

Houdini couldn't get this right leaning court to listen to that one in a million years.

these guys are insulting the intelligence of good conservative people that are making these cases up.

You didn't answer my question.

Saratoga_Mike · 12-09-2020, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boxcar

You didn't answer my question.

Rep Kelly sought injunctive relief; it was denied expeditiously, as it was a meritless request.

As for this case, I do not believe any other state has joined the Texas suit, contrary to the assertions in your article. More importantly, Texas has no standing (please see Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution). Perhaps you'd like to federalize the presidential election process. If so, get to work on a Constitutional Amendment.

boxcar · 12-09-2020, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Rep Kelly sought injunctive relief; it was denied expeditiously, as it was a meritless request.

As for this case, I do not believe any other state has joined the Texas suit, contrary to the assertions in your article. More importantly, Texas has no standing (please see Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution). Perhaps you'd like to federalize the presidential election process. If so, get to work on a Constitutional Amendment.

Yes, numerous states have joined the suit. It is reality. Of course, feel free to deny it. But before you do, why don't you check in with your favorite deep state propaganda sources to see if they agree with American Thinker?

Also, if Texas and other the other states had no standing, why wouldn't the SC dismiss the case immediately without a hearing? Why wasn't it denied "expeditiously"? Why would the court allow the litigants to take up the court's valuable time? Why would six of the justices rule to hear the case?

Finally, American Thinker explained why Texas and the rest of the states do have standing, constitutionally. I guess they can explain it to people, but, of course, they can't make anyone understand it.

Saratoga_Mike · 12-09-2020, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boxcar

1) Yes, numerous states have joined the suit. It is reality. Of course, feel free to deny it. But before you do, why don't you check in with your favorite deep state propaganda sources to see if they agree with American Thinker?

Also, if Texas and other the other states had no standing, why wouldn't the SC dismiss the case immediately without a hearing? 2) Why wasn't it denied "expeditiously"? Why would the court allow the litigants to take up the court's valuable time? Why would six of the justices rule to hear the case?

Finally, 3) American Thinker explained why Texas and the rest of the states do have standing, constitutionally. I guess they can explain it to people, but, of course, they can't make anyone understand it.

1) There's an expectation that others states will join the suit. As of now, they have not.

2) Rep Kelly applied for injunctive relief on 12/3/20. It was denied on 12/8/20. That's expeditious in the case of the Supreme Court. The Texas suit was filed yesterday (12/8/20).

3) I think they're wrong.

How about a bet - if the Supreme Court overturns the election based on this suit, I'll never post again. If they don't, you agree to never post again. Please confirm the bet.