I actually think that they ruled against texas because the Constitution hasn't been broken yet. not until the electors are sent. Texas also doesnt have a statute that gives them the privilege to contest. I thinks that's what Alito was saying. if you replace the person filing with someone from the PA legislature. he/she is the person whose privilege was broken. but that option has to go through state court. However, Alito also has accepted the evidence. so, once electors are sent, the contract is broken. so, we can file with the list of supporters that we made last night. we know who in the government supports Trump. and we can file when the electors are sent on the 14th. remember that the judicial branch can't hold bias. so, they wouldn't tell you what you are doing wrong. it shows a vested interest. BUT no judge seems to have a problem with the evidence
posted ago by PotentPotable
+9 / -0
Comments (19)
sorted by:
I hear that some info from the results of the Dominion audit in Michigan is leaking.
It's called the constitution that they signed onto when they became a state. That's the contract. The moment the states usurped the state legislature's exclusive constitutional role to determine the manner of selecting electors (which they chose by passing state election laws for the federal election), the constitution was violated. Lots of gymnastics.
The contract isn't broken until the electoral votes are cast
The contract was broken the second the state legislature's election law was violated. State legislature is entitled to independent remedy (if they uncuck themselves), but even a battered wife has rights. Their laws were violated, illegal elections occurred, the state certified the results, and submitted a slate of electors drawn from an unconstitutional process. Damage occurred well before the 14th.
right. but the path that Texas took keeps this as a hypothetical crime until it becomes a federal crime. people within the state of PA can make a claim until a reason falls under article 3. at that point, the states can file a new claim and personally, CA is looking good for this. unless they file within the state first
There's nothing hypothetical. PA, MI, WI, GA unconstitutionally appointed electors. They did so publicly, via consent decrees and other extrajudicial means (even with the involvement of SCOTUS), and raced to certify. This is not hypothetical, as demonstrated in the TX suit. It actually happened.
Texas also doesnt have a statute that gives them the privilege to contest...... what I mean is that Texas wasn't appointed to contest the popular vote, the legislators have that right. if they feel the state broke the law, they should file a suit
Texas is a sovereign party with an executive under its constitution. The executive - per the AG - has the power to bring suit on behalf of the state. I believe it certainly has the constitutional (both federal and state) obligation to sue to protect the interests of citizens of Texas.
Legislator pass law, they are not executives empowered to sue on the behalf of the state IIRC.
He can bring on behalf of the state when this becomes a situation where his state is federally involved. right now, only the internal workings of these states are involved. when the electoral votes are cast, this becomes a federal issue.
imagine me filing a suit for a sexual offender in PA and I am from West Virginia. I am not directly effected by the inner workings of the state. in this case, the DA and the victim can file.
yesterday, we found out that the victim in PA can file a claim AND the legislators because laws were made without their permission. once the electoral votes are cast, it becomes a federal case. but the evidence can be used in the SC from a different filing
Electors in said states have been appointed.
"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..."
Casting of electoral votes comes "after" appointment. The appointment of electors is already participation in the constitutional (federal) process. Most states do that via certification, unless there are arcane provisions that equate casting of vote with appointment; the plain language of the constitution indicates otherwise. Transmission of votes formally moves the results from the states to the government, but the very act of appointing prior to voting, prior to transmission, is entirely the purview of the legislature. The defendant states violated these bounds, leading to the illegal (per their OWN statutes) appointment of electors. Unconstitutional and injurious to any party who agreed to limitations imposed by the constitution.
and right, with the appointment of the electors, the legislators have the duty to contest it within their state. but they aren't. it seems more like people didn't actually qualify to perform their jobs. this could be the recent law suit. the SC just ruled that people can sue individuals within the government. sue your legislators to file a claim against the electoral votes
As noted by the WI federal circuit judge, via Rehnquist in Bush vs. Gore, state legislators serve a unique role due to their prominence in the constitution. They are - for purposes of determining electors - simultaneously state "and" federal authorities, in essence a bridge between the federal contract of the constitution and the local nuance of the state.
Just because they are not contesting in their own house does not make it unconstitutional (incompetence, malfeasance, or cowardice are not insulators; it's unconstitutional or not regardless of any moving actions by the legislature).
Since the appointment of electors affects the union, other states have an interest in ensuring even these pseudo internal matters are followed. By virtue of the narrow constitutional bridge "specific" to the state legislatures and their simultaneous federal and state authority in appointing electors, TX (and any other state) has a permanent "window" into the workings of the other states. While TX cannot instruct a sovereign state "what" laws to pass to determine electors, TX is certainly entitled to notice if a state is violating the federally mandated election law (law the state legislature passed), and TX is free to dispute that as a matter between states as members of the union. SCOTUS settles that dispute.
I don't disagree with what you are saying. I am saying that SC said that the violation hasn't happened federally yet for Texas to file and therefor moot. if someone wants to file that is currently effected, send that person forward
Waiting on couple calls to confirm that for me in my personal universe but yeah that is tracking to my initial asks. So here is the thing, 1. give up and surrender, 2. keep sucking at the "wait and see tit", 3.. , "3" seems like the best option
that would be cool. if you can confirm, can you let me know. also, there was a ruling yesterday about lawsuits against people in the government. I think that applies somewhere for the end result of all this but I can't find the article