God Bless Texas

Give 'em heck, Texas!

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...sylvania-and-wisconsin-at-supreme-court/

Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election RulesKurt Haubrich / Flickr / CC / Cropped

JOEL B. POLLAK7 Dec 202031,192

3:25

The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court shortly before midnight on Monday challenging the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the Constitution.

Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.

Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:

Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.

…

This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.

Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.

Documents follow:

TX v State Motion 2020-12-07 FINAL by Breitbart News on Scribd

TX v State Mpi 2020-12-07 Final by Breitbart News on Scribd

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His newest e-book is Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak

Good Deal

Nice !

Hoo-Rah!
God Bless Texas indeed!

Wish we could get as many states as possible to do the same. Thank you Texas!

Come on Texas! I will be putting that in my wish/prayer list.

How does Texas have standing???

Nice.God bless Texas

It is a state of the United States and is affected by the election. Just guessing.

Thank you Texas we can't get it out of the Pa. state because Pa. is corrupt

Ummm, don't think that satisfies the criteria of having a sufficient legal interest to bring the action. But what do I know?

Watch Jay Sekulow show on youtube, they just did an hour live about this matter.

Texas does have standing.

God bless texas

God bless the united states

This is a great day for patriots.

I hope and pray it works to keep common sense in the Whitehouse .

Standing = These United States.
Federal elections have national implications.

But what gives Texas standing to complain about the voting procedures used in other states? What gives one state the right to complain about the procedures used by another state? That's really the province of the federal government, I would argue. How is it different than Texas filing suit against . . . Nebraska for example, because Nebraska has "irregularities" in the way it issues drivers licenses?

14th equal protection

Texas citizens followed the law while others did not. Texas citizens were harmed and effectively disenfranchised.

My point exactly. The Equal Protection clause does not protect states; it protects individuals. So citizens of Texas may have standing, but not the state of Texas. I could be wrong. I appreciate that Texas is taking a stand and all that, but I predict the Supremes toss the case based on standing. And on mootness. And on the lack of an available remedy. But what do I know?

Texas is acting on behalf of its citizens. And they are seeking a remedy in the suit. The argument under the electors clause and basis of the suit is that sole authority for establishing state elections for electors lies with the legislature and the various states had election law changed or modified by courts, consent agreements (georgia) or even local county election boards. All blatantly in violation of the electors clause. The remedy is simple, in all states named the legislature shall be ordered to exercise their due authority and choose electors. That is all Texas is asking.
Note this isn't toss the vote and give it to Trump. If ordered the state legislatures in question can choose whoever they want as electors.

Well, didn't people complain to the Supreme Court that Pennsylvania was not following its written election laws and John Roberts said he didn't want to get involved and sent the case back to Pennsylvania?

I guess now he's involved whether he likes it or not. He should have taken a stance and made a ruling before it got to this point.

Different era.
About the same odds.
Some of the same flags.
Same principles.

Exactly ! This could have all been avoided if Roberts followed the law rather than ideology.

It won't surprise me to see them refuse this case. Frankly, I am confused about exactly how Texas has been harmed. Their votes are certified and will go to the Electoral College. I don't see how they have standing.
Clearly law has been violated by the other states and SCOTUS should address that. But I'd bet they won't

I believe all these scenarios were already thought out and have pre-predicted out comes, I remember last summer when people predicted that the election would be decided by the SC.

Texas has standing because the constitution is an agreement made between the States to run Presidential elections under certain criteria. That contract/criteria was breached, and thus, here we are.
A State court can't sanction another, SCOTUS is the appropriate course.
This was always the smartest course. Because it does not require proving fraud of any kind. You can claim that changes made in the election process itself were unconstitutional, so it doesn't matter if the votes were legit or fraudulent, because they were made under false/unconstitutional practices in the first place.

Furthermore, so anyone questioning whether the SCOTUS would hear this at all?

Well, it's been docketed. No. 22O155

The remedy under the constitution is a House vote FYI.

**Sorry for being Canadian

Lazuras , the state of Texas is it’s citizens. The state govt can Sue on their behalf. The AG of California filed many suits against the Trump administration on behalf of the citizens.

That's encouraging !!

I thought you were a counselor, Counselor ?

w

I know just enough to be dangerous.

I thought a lot of folks on here were trappers, and yet everyday I see evidence to the contrary. :-) Just kidding, don't start the hate mail. Again.

Summary Unanimous Supreme Court ruling July 6 2020

The interesting thing is Texas is only trying to invalidate appointments of electors, not the Election that would effect all the House and Senate elections in these States.

SCOTUS will probably toss it after the announcement by Rep. Biedermann at noon today 12/8/2020.

Today, Texans are one step closer to having their voices heard on the issue of Texas independence. This morning, State Representative Kyle Biedermann has submitted the Texas Independence Referendum Act to be filed in the next session of the Texas Legislature.

The U.S. Supreme Court cases cited in the article were brought by or against electors vis-à-vis their state. In other words, Colorado didn't sue Washington and argue that it should have done something different with how it handled its electors, which is what I understand the basis of the Texas lawsuit to be.

I agree. I posted it for informational purposes regarding appointing electors and how the Current Supremes have veiwed it from some of the background information.

I keep hearing people saying that the U.S. Constituion limits the State legislatures to making rules for elections. However this is clearly layed out in the Constitution that this is for Senators and Representatives. No mention of Presidents.

"Section 4
Clause 1
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

I apologize if I missed this above, but Louisiana has joined Texas in the suit.

You know it's real when the Cajuns pile on. That has been my hope since I first heard of it. That multiple states join in.

... Texas ... Louisiana... a few more and we can form a confederation again... aught to be easy this time... half the yanks have moved down here so we already got a mess of pow’s before it even fires up lol

Hopefully somethimg plays out and send biden packing or it will come down to #resist.

Shame that my state is one your suing but if y'all will head this way you'll find you got lots of support here.

Seven states have joined.

ALABAMA
ARKANSAS
MISSISSIPPI
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
FLORIDA
KENTUCKY

That's nine total counting Texas and Louisiana.

Take me to your leader Savell (as my hands are in the air)......

Sadly, Nevada will not be among them.

How does Texas et al get past the argument that they should have complained (filed suit) before the election, as opposed to complaining after the vote was taken and they don't like the result?

Jim

Pretty obvious that prior to the election they would have had no standing. Catch 22. November 2 = no standing. November 4. = too late. Total = no due process

Is a state a "person" for purposes of due process and equal protection?

Jim

I think it all turns on whether the states can show fraud. Otherwise, the harm they suffered is just speculation.

Jim

Is a corporation ?

You're the lawyer or did we not yet haves states when you sat for the bar.

Yes, the SC says, a corporation is a person. For at least some DP and EQ purposes.

Jim

Why should I provide any answers, when we have so many lawyers here already?

And when my opinions are immediately rejected?

Jim

I don't. But you are the expert here. I think it is enough to show that these states violated the constitution whether there was fraud or not

how can they show fraud if they dont review the evidence?? everything i read... testimonies affidavids dominion servers havent even been reviewed cases get thrown out by the courts with out hearing them!!

I think it will be necessary for these states to show actual harm by, for instance, showing there was sufficient fraud to change the outcome in the defendant-states.

What other harm does Texas have? I can't think of any.

I'd want to read the briefs and make check some of the cited authorities. If I saw the plaintiffs' complaint, I could better tell what the issues are. I'd especially be interested in the relief requested.

Jim

"Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States."

If this is true it should not be hard to find ballots from dead people among those tens of millions of mail out ballots. I believe some of those have already been exposed. Or then is it not enough fraud?

This case should excite Constitutional law professors and scholars all over the country! It's pretty rare for one state to sue another.


Jim

The arguement is not fraud but that the states changed election law by executive action or court decree not by legislative action as required under the Constitution. That others took advantage of the changes to commit fraud is moot.

Any speculation of fraud merely supports the argument that election law can only be mandated by the legislature not local election officials or courts.

Read the complaint.

If you saw someone driving recklessly, and they go on down the road, do you think you can maintain a lawsuit against them?

If they're driving recklessly, and bash up your car and put you in the hospital, then you have a case.

Jim

That was my original question too. How was Texas harmed ? I suspect that is the route Roberts will use to shut this down. BUT...........I suspect that from a federal perspective , all votes must be treated equally in accordance with state statute under article 2 section 1. The state legislatures are supreme. Clearly, that was not done in WI, MI PA & GA.

So are Texas voters harmed if voters in PA et al are subject to unequal treatment resulting in a tainted set of electors being named ? I would say yes.

I saw at least a half dozen law professors on several channels tonight who thought that this was a much stronger case than the Kelly PA case.

The more you try, the less and less credible you appear. Your hate clouds you.

Article 2 Section 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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Does anybody see where the legislature has sole power in setting up elections for a President in this Article? Is the word election even in this article or the word vote, or does there even have to be a vote of the people?

The legislature shall appoint people to do the Job of electors.

If the whole election was to be decided by pa results, and pa gov did something so egregious and fraudulent to alter the results. Then absolutely other states and citizens were harmed.

I'd suggest watching jay sekulow's show and mark levin's show.

And putting some of the continual goofs on here, on ignore.

The republicans or thier agents have made little progress towards changing the outcome of this election. Every few days people glob on to the new white hope and almost every time it is a knockout. Why in heavens name would people believe it will be different this time when the odds are getting worse every day?

What was Einstiens definition of insanity?

Cannot speak for any one but myself, but I will never give up or quit! Up until the suits reached the Supreme Court none really mattered except for getting evidence gathered. Only a definitive Supreme Court decision might be adequate to head off a major physical collision down the road and we have NOT gotten such a decision. Yesterdays opinion did not even reject the PA case, just announced that they decided not to look at it as an emergency. Who knows with the Texas suit. What is odd to me is that you would think that surrender is the correct option. French much??

I am not surrendering. I don't care for either candidate.

I do hope all this nonsense does not cause the Republicans to lose those two Senate seats in GA.

Some on here are foolish for not wanting to get to the real truth.

Yep

If anything it will ensure a win by invigorating the base.

While it will anger the Abrams fraud machine and cause them to try to turn out as well we are on to them now and I guarantee every polling place and counting room will have us watching like a hawk.

Saw where Elon Musk is moving from CA to Texas. Smart man!

True what do you know?

Really?

You know how hectic traffic already is here? Maybe out to Alpine.

Biden should want this investigated to prove he won fair and square. Otherwise, him talking about uniting the nation will never happen, if that's what he really wants.

17 States have now joined the fight.
If you want to read the official brief

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...et%20al.%20-%20Final%20with%20Tables.pdf

Nice

Just heard Bill O' Reilly on the radio saying that the supremes would not overturn the election based on this case. He said he was so confident he would bet against the supremes overturning the election on this case. Apparently he is taking bets like Jim.

They wouldn't be overturning an election. They'd simply be following the allowed for procedures, where once an election can't be certified, a house vote occurs.

That is NOT overturning an election. That's an election by different, and constitutionally consistent means.

Overturning an election couldn't happen until after inauguration... Once a new elector is in power to overturn.

Biden's boy under investigation, and now daddy won't be able to pardon him. UH OH bad day for them fellas.

How did a Canadian become an expert on the US Constitution?

We have legal experts crawling out of the woodwork here!

Jim

Contrary to what you might have been taught in ambulance chasing schools our founders weren't professional extortionists. Most were farmers or business folk. The ones that had sat for the bar had done so the old fashioned way of actual study and attendance at schools run by the various churches so morality and jurisprudence were not strangers.

Hence, our founding documents were written in common English understandle by all speakers of the language.

I guess it never occurred to them to ask what the definition of "is" is?

"Contrary to what you might have been taught in ambulance chasing schools our founders weren't professional extortionists. Most were farmers or business folk. The ones that had sat for the bar had done so the old fashioned way of actual study and attendance at schools run by the various churches so morality and jurisprudence were not strangers.

Hence, our founding documents were written in common English understandle by all speakers of the language.

I guess it never occurred to them to ask what the definition of "is" is?"

I am saving that statement as it is beautiful!

Chris

Here I sit with my buns aflexin, giving birth to another texan. Saw this on a bathroom wall in a truckstop.

I never seen your replies as anything more than your opinions. Many of which are disagreed with.