2428
Comments (72)
sorted by:
76
deleted 76 points ago +76 / -0
40
chlofefe 40 points ago +40 / -0

The only way SCOTUS can rule against this is if they want to nullify the Constitution

38
deleted 38 points ago +39 / -1
13
deleted 13 points ago +13 / -0
0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
23
milhouseisameme 23 points ago +23 / -0

Well if they do and the constitution doesn’t matter, we can just take the presidency

21
chlofefe 21 points ago +21 / -0

The way I see it, if rigger states can disregard the Constitution as they please, then Texas can choose to send 1,000 electors for Trump. Since the law no longer matters.

17
deleted 17 points ago +17 / -0
10
SouthernParadise 10 points ago +10 / -0

We should all show up to vote as appointed electors on December 14th. All 80M of us. We can call it reparations 😏

2
TeleScreenMedia 2 points ago +2 / -0

Possession is 9/10ths of the law!!

12
deleted 12 points ago +12 / -0
3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
4
BillDStrong 4 points ago +4 / -0

We have 2 sets of government. Did you mean to say 2 Federal governments?

9
deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0
4
Aisle-is-closed 4 points ago +4 / -0

Georgia is being a pussy actually. Instead of taking the power back (which they can do at any time), and voting for the electors as they see fit (trump). Instead they are asking the Supreme Court what to do. It’s a weak and cowardly move.

28
shark62174 28 points ago +28 / -0

Why didn't they sign on to their own states cases or even bring their own, instead of waiting until SCOTUS? They were actually the injured party.

30
berson129 30 points ago +30 / -0

Lack of courage. It only took 20 states AGs, a sitting president, and hundreds of others to sign on, then they stood up and said , "hey we're here too!"

8
MobilePede 8 points ago +8 / -0

Cowards, but at least they are learning to fight, I guess.

24
ProphetOfKek 24 points ago +24 / -0

Faggotry, that’s why.

13
basedLIBERTY76 13 points ago +13 / -0

The glorious state of Texas opened a direct door to SCOTUS constitutionally. They have a fantastic argument that is black and white, is the constitution legally binding or not? This lawsuit also allows every other injured party to intervene with lawsuits of their own to grieve to the court.

6
ontothefuture 6 points ago +6 / -0

Kemp is fearing for his life.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
7
keeponwinning 7 points ago +7 / -0

SCOTUS almost never allows the submission of new evidence. One kind of case does, a new origination case, like the kind where a state sues another state and it goes straight to SCOTUS.

5
Blinduser 5 points ago +5 / -0

They’ll ask judge Sullivan to look

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
20
LearnedHat 20 points ago +20 / -0

Well - they could do something about it

11
Bookbound 11 points ago +11 / -0

The legislatures in PA and GA were saying they don't have the authority to call special sessions, only the governors - which of course won't (whether they can or can't is open for debate).

12
chlofefe 12 points ago +12 / -0

they were just being cowards. hopefully SCOTUS will give them the little nudge they need to be brave

11
deleted 11 points ago +11 / -0
4
Bookbound 4 points ago +4 / -0

I wonder that they have quorum.

4
zooty 4 points ago +4 / -0

The trick is not to look at what is or isn't supposed to happen but look at the consequences. If the legislature met up and decided to send electors for Trump, that might violate the state constitution but the question is, in what way does that actually matter? Certainly not to the federal constitution which is silent on the matter.

Now, there might be consequences locally but since nobody is spelling them out, the assumption can only be that there aren't any.

1
Bookbound 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think a lot of the legislatures are scared for themselves and their families, and understand that one state turning would most likely be the turning point for the true results of the election. So, they hide behind technicalities, and want the courts or congress to make the hard decisions.

5
geckogreen 5 points ago +5 / -0

Georgia governor won't call the necessary special session.

9
LearnedHat 9 points ago +9 / -0

They don’t need that - they can call the session

8
Litehouse 8 points ago +8 / -0

They tried and nearly got enough signatures, but the Lt Gov called and some chickened out.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
slag 1 point ago +1 / -0

Good point. If SCOTUS weasels they may still provide cover for the cowards. Would suck though.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
slag 2 points ago +2 / -0

Which state would go down to for evidence? I thought this was original jurisdiction, so tx originated, SCOTUS would be in trial court mode.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
4
slag 4 points ago +4 / -0

I was about to say "never underestimate the court's ability to punt" but given their recent forays into this, and the actual historic nature of the event, perhaps they hear it. Ever since Roberts and Sullivan, I have tossed out preconceived notions of judges big time.

I think Kelly and Parnell case is still floating as well....may be an indicator (similar const questions).

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
19
chambers11 19 points ago +19 / -0

This is the way. Legislators in every state backing the Texas case need to file in this. The Governors and SOS of the swing states deliberately bypassed the legislatures, so having the actual legislatures sign on and say “yes, what these states did is illegal” is huge. Who else better to attest to the blatant disregard of the constitution, than the state legislatures.

This is in spite of the fact that they just won’t call a damn session.

13
FlusteredPeach2 13 points ago +13 / -0

Nice to see my reps didn’t sign this. Out with the trash they go.

7
BillDCat 7 points ago +7 / -0

Same. I called. I emailed. I even spent over an hour on the phone with my local senator who spent most of that time giving me a kindergarten-level lecture on the election process, why signatures couldn't be verified because of secrecy of the vote, and telling me what a wonderful man Brad Raffensperger is.

I couldn't get my local House rep on the phone but emailed multiple times over multiple days and weeks, and got exactly one response.

2
Litehouse 2 points ago +2 / -0

My rep did, and I can’t stand the guy personally, but I have great respect for him for this.

-1
Staatssicherheit -1 points ago +1 / -2

Or call them and make a good argument?

7
MAGALogic 7 points ago +7 / -0

The fence sitters are finally choosing sides as they can see which way the winds of destiny are blowing.

Too bad they didn't have this courage to do this weeks earlier.

7
freedomdogs 7 points ago +7 / -0

Ummm. Better late than never, but still Spineless.

Why weren’t they ripping up the state top to bottom if they saw a problem.

They didn’t need kemp to go into session if there was a state constitutional emergency.

We need new restrictions on what politicians can and can’t invest in while in and immediately after being in office.

6
NeverGiveUpTrump 6 points ago +6 / -0

Democrat legislators would have had a special session without the governors permission because they dont give a fuck. Republicans legislators need to tape into their inner honey badger and get it done.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
5
Grix82 5 points ago +5 / -0

Yes, its glorious. Took them long enough, but still glorious nonetheless.

5
yanksali 5 points ago +5 / -0

Georgia sec of state is a piece of work. Legislature wasn’t notified of his election changes.

4
IntegrityCritical 4 points ago +5 / -1

How many are with the GA legislators? What does et al mean?

6
Litehouse 6 points ago +6 / -0

15 senators, 12 reps

5
IntegrityCritical 5 points ago +6 / -1

That’s all? We are going to have to be laser-focused on primarying a lot of legislators across the US

7
Litehouse 7 points ago +7 / -0

Our Lt Gov threatened them 🙄

3
IntegrityCritical 3 points ago +4 / -1

How? I missed that.

1
TeleScreenMedia 1 point ago +1 / -0

Et al is Latin meaning 'and the rest' often used in legal writ

2
auntjemima 2 points ago +2 / -0

This seems important LOL.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
dfponysoldier 1 point ago +1 / -0

Where does it say that the GA legislators are in on it?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
ISTApackagingguy 1 point ago +2 / -1

From what I understand the Texas case is not is not a state issue. The SCOTUS is the appropriate place for state vs state arguments to be heard. The people here who say that SCOTUS will nullify themselves if they nullify the facts presented are correct (I am not an attorney but have extensive experience with regulatory requirements, and I believe the PEDES are correct).

1
veteran299 1 point ago +1 / -0

so does this count as dominoes yet?

1
TexasPride 1 point ago +1 / -0

Where is vernon j9nes?