How about this. Texas is a State in a group of States who've come together and agreed upon a constitution as the underlying rule of law for this joint nation of States. If 1 State is violating this constitution is it the business of every State.
When one state or several states break the law and force a leader on them illegally, the other states like Texas can
Sue them and the Supreme Court decides who is right.
The union is dissolved because some like GA, AZ, MI, PA, WI etc refuse to follow the law and willfully cheat so Texas and other real states refuse to follow them down the path of communist dictatorships.
Texas can grab arms, saddle up, and go smash the other states who lie, cheat, steal and refuse to follow the agreed upon rules, laws and Constitution.
Those are the options. Supreme Court is made for shit like this. The Dred Scott case lead directly to the Civil War. Hopefully our SCOTUS is smarter this time and smacks the cheating states down.
Providing a less facetious answer and admittedly I’m no legal expert either....
No argument made.
Vladeck is assuming that even if PA flips no one else will which is just hedging his bets in case PA DOES flip. Realistically, if one state turns out battle switches from up hill to down hill.
Under the Eerie doctrine federal courts follow federal law on procedural issues so PA’s procedural ruling isn’t welcome at SCOTUS.
Kelly’s case isn’t outrageous. Alito’s earlier mandates that PA segregate ballots as they may not count would suggest that at least one justice thinks Kelly could have a point.
Kelly makes the claim that PA is applying a double-standard with Laches which seems a fair argument. Further he names four not two points so either myself or Mr. Vladeck may need to reread.
Due process includes “ A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.” so dismissing a case without considering evidence could reasonably be interpreted as not ruling based on evidence.
PA SC dismissed on procedural grounds. This is distinctly different from upholding the legality of the law.
PA SC still hasn’t upheld Act 77 even if you say so twice in a row.
PA sidestepped the separation of powers by attempting to enact laws without legislative approval. That’s not how our Republic operates.
Courts don’t get to create laws they get to interpret laws. See above.
Courts still don’t get to create laws even if you REALLY want them to. Legislators legislate, judicial judges and the executive executes.
“If there is no "there" there, then why is Alito indulging Kelly by ordering PA to respond, now before the safe-harbor deadline?”.... proper grammar is required for proper responses.
Again I’m no lawyer but these would be fairly common sense layman responses.
He is a CNN contributor. Debunked.
Lol!!! That did it for me
CNN is Fake News
The fact that SCOTUS will hear the case and 7 States have joined tell you this is for real
Also, because this is separate from Trump, SCOTUS has a free hand to do its constitutional duty.
How about this. Texas is a State in a group of States who've come together and agreed upon a constitution as the underlying rule of law for this joint nation of States. If 1 State is violating this constitution is it the business of every State.
I like this response. Texas is making a declaration.
Tell him your happy for him
let the leftist cunts dance...we will wait and quietly walk into the sunset when this is over, pissing on them as we go.
Sorry everyone I’m not a constitutional lawyer but id like to hear the conservative response to this guys twitter thread
When one state or several states break the law and force a leader on them illegally, the other states like Texas can
Those are the options. Supreme Court is made for shit like this. The Dred Scott case lead directly to the Civil War. Hopefully our SCOTUS is smarter this time and smacks the cheating states down.
Providing a less facetious answer and admittedly I’m no legal expert either....
No argument made.
Vladeck is assuming that even if PA flips no one else will which is just hedging his bets in case PA DOES flip. Realistically, if one state turns out battle switches from up hill to down hill.
Under the Eerie doctrine federal courts follow federal law on procedural issues so PA’s procedural ruling isn’t welcome at SCOTUS.
Kelly’s case isn’t outrageous. Alito’s earlier mandates that PA segregate ballots as they may not count would suggest that at least one justice thinks Kelly could have a point.
Kelly makes the claim that PA is applying a double-standard with Laches which seems a fair argument. Further he names four not two points so either myself or Mr. Vladeck may need to reread.
Due process includes “ A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.” so dismissing a case without considering evidence could reasonably be interpreted as not ruling based on evidence.
PA SC dismissed on procedural grounds. This is distinctly different from upholding the legality of the law.
PA SC still hasn’t upheld Act 77 even if you say so twice in a row.
PA sidestepped the separation of powers by attempting to enact laws without legislative approval. That’s not how our Republic operates.
Courts don’t get to create laws they get to interpret laws. See above.
Courts still don’t get to create laws even if you REALLY want them to. Legislators legislate, judicial judges and the executive executes.
“If there is no "there" there, then why is Alito indulging Kelly by ordering PA to respond, now before the safe-harbor deadline?”.... proper grammar is required for proper responses.
Again I’m no lawyer but these would be fairly common sense layman responses.
Thanks for that!!