Opposition to bill of complaint. MI,WI,PA,GA respond

Madness.

 

Each one of those lawsuits was in furtherance of making Trump the winner, filed by Trump backers, or Trump lawyers, by any legal means they could conjure up, the vast majority have been either tossed out, or suits abandoned. Therefore, your point is disingenuous.

 

That is true. I've been trying to explain this to everybody.
But of course my little posts get drowned out in the noise.

Under the US Constitution, it's the state legislatures' job to determine the President.
The Electoral College prevents any electoral disputes that could result in a constitutional crisis.

One strategy that could possibly be used (in some cases) is for the federal level of government to refuse to recognize state's elections unless the legislature actually acts to directly choose electors, rather than just indirectly through state law.
This could at least force the issue to come up to a state legislature vote, something that doesn't happen very often.

 

True, Pat.

These are Frivolous BS "suits" that are an insult to the legal profession.

Concerning any lawyer actually responsible for these "filings", I would have to recommend suspension or disbarment.

 

It'll be a miracle if these fringe conspiracy theories don't get someone killed.

 

Thank you Chief Justice Arkanis.

 

If 4 states run their elections in a slip shod way in violation of their own states election laws, the outcome affects every voter in the USA.

 

What law did they break? Be specific.

 

That's of course true, but it's much more complicated than that.

State law typically ultimately leaves the decision up to one or a group of designated people.

However, the US Constitution says the decision is left up to the states (which means the state legislature). So there could potentially be a way for the federal level of government to get involved, if they want to demand the decision from the state legislature directly.

However, simply because the outcome of state-run presidential elections affects everyone in the country does not automatically mean that the federal government has the right to get involved.

 

You seriously have no idea what this means?



It means the SC has no interest in involving itself with this madness.

 

Thank you Chief Justice Patricio Da Silva.

 

Past cases prove you wrong.

 

So what?

 

There's a whole lotta wishful thinking going on.

What will the complaint be when SCOTUS says, "buh bye?"

Trump is a lousy judge picker? They aren't real conservatives? What's the plan?

 

I'm sure the voting irregularity affidavits as well as mathematical evidence will be presented.

 

This is the latest circus, but the big one will be on January 6th. A few holdouts in Congress will try to object to making the EC vote official. It won't work, of course. It'll just be the latest public embarrassment from a party that has completely gone off the deep end.

 

Thank you Chief Justice Peabody. But seriously, though, conservatives actually fall fo this ****?

 

It means they alleged election fraud, not the states violated their own election laws making the outcome illegal.

 

Lol. You hold that thought close to your heart, PP. Then you can use it to wipe your tears. Poor guy.

 

What law, specifically, did they break and why would it make the votes themselves "illegal"?

 

They think SC Justices are the type of people to believe in conspiracy theories. Hey, we have a POTUS who does. Sad, isn't it.

 

In addition to its lack of standing and the mootness of this untimely action, Texas’s Electors Clause claim has no merit. There was no violation of state law, let alone one that was so significant that it warrants creation of a novel constitutional claim. 9 Again, these claims have already been litigated. As the Third Circuit explained, such a challenge as this “eek to turn * * * state-law claims into federal ones * * * ut its alchemy cannot transmute lead into gold.” Trump v. Secretary of Pa., 2020 WL 7012522, *9 (3d Cir. Nov. 27, 2020)

 

that's your opinion.

 

It's his right to challenge so let him do it?

Are you really concerned it's going to go anywhere?

I think this is a battle you've already won. I don't think we need five threads every time the guy says something.

 

So you are not really a fan of constitutional rights. Got it.