>To clarify, I said "to me, it is unquestionable".
All you've proven is that you're "unquestioning", which is why you're parroting disproven lies. But not one shred of proof for your claims about election fraud. The only widespread instances of fraud are the claims you're parroting.
You mean the "widely scorned" Texas election lawsuit? That's bullshit. But you wouldn't know that, being so unquestioning and gullible.
Funny how Texas, which has historically been so concerned about "States Rights" (a euphemistic dog whistle for the right to own slaves), is suddenly so busy sticking their nose into other state's rights.
Trump Asks Supreme Court To Let Him Join Widely Scorned Texas Election Lawsuit
Election experts scoffed this week when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced he would be filing a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against four key states in an attempt to block presidential electors from finalizing Joe Biden's election victory.
But now President Trump and 17 states he carried are joining that effort.
Officials in the states targeted in the suit — Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — derided it as nothing more than an unfounded publicity stunt.
The lawsuit may be a typically adept Trump move to get attention, but election law experts said he has little chance of getting the Supreme Court to support his move.
As election law expert Richard Hasen put it about the Texas filing, "This is a press release masquerading as a lawsuit. ... What utter garbage. Dangerous garbage, but garbage."
Just how little legal support there is for the lawsuit is evidenced by who signed the briefs asking the high court to intervene. Trump's brief was not signed by acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall or any other Justice Department official. Rather, the brief was signed by John Eastman, a conservative law professor at Chapman University. (A Trump campaign statement said the president intervened "in his personal capacity as candidate for re-election.")
The Texas brief was not signed by the state's solicitor general, Kyle Hawkins. Paxton, who signed the Texas brief, remains under indictment over securities fraud and is also facing an FBI investigation on bribery and abuse of office allegations.
All of the briefs filed so far are in the form of a motion seeking permission to sue the states in the Supreme Court. As legal experts have noted, it is unclear what legal standing Trump, Texas or the 17 states supporting their move have for challenging the results of elections in other states.
Moreover, with the Electoral College slated to meet next week, this legal action amounts to little more than an eleventh hour Hail Mary pass. It is more like trying to stop the game clock from ticking when all the players are walking off the field.
Trump and Texas File New Election Lawsuit After Supreme Court Rejection: A Closer Look
Seth takes a closer look at the Supreme Court rejecting a lawsuit seeking to block Pennsylvania from certifying its electoral votes for Joe Biden and the GOP attempting another Hail Mary pass to overturn the election results.
It's up to the charlatans filing the frivolous lawsuits to "PROVE" their claims, which they've spectacularly failed to do, not the rest of the world to disprove them. I've already provided you with links and citations, but you're ignoring them, so I'm not going to waste my time on that again, since you're arguing in bad faith, and have already proven you won't read them anyway.
If you support states rights so much, then why do you support Texas interfering in other states' rights, or does it only go one way?
"States Rights" is actually a racist dog whistle, as we all well know. People like Ronald Reagan who use that term don't actually mean it at face value, but use it as a dog whistle to racists, since they actually support things like the federal war on drugs and don't support things like gay marriage, both of which prove they don't give a damn about "states rights". That's evidence that they're not arguing in good faith, and actually mean it as a racist dog whistle, no matter how much fake moral outrage they inflect their denials of racism with. It's about as convincing as saying "I'm not racist, but ..."
The point of using a dog whistle like "states rights" is so you can deny it by saying things like "I can tell you, that my personal support of states rights, has absolutely nothing to do with racism." The cat is out of the bag, and that's simply not plausible, especially given your other statements:
When you claim to support states rights, that directly contradicts your claim of supporting Texas's frivolous lawsuit that explicitly interferes in other state's rights, so it's pretty obvious you're not being intellectually honest or arguing in good faith.
You're not fooling anyone by unquestioningly supporting a frivolous unconstitutional lawsuit that flagrantly violates states rights, and totally fails to prove its claims, then implausibly claiming you support states rights, but not in a racist way.
Once your precious Texas Hail Mary lawsuit is laughed and kicked out of court, what will you say then? Will you finally admit you're wrong, or will you descend even deeper into conspiracy theories?
>Dog-Whistling Dixie. When Reagan said “states’ rights,’ he was talking about race.
>The current row is about interpreting Reagan’s defense of “states’ rights” and his choice of venue. Was this language, in this place, an endorsement of the white South’s wish to reverse the 20-year-old trend of using federal laws (and troops when necessary) to protect the rights of African-Americans? Or was Reagan’s remark just an expression of his well-known disdain for “big government”—and his choice of Neshoba County an unhappy blunder? In the ambiguity lies the answer.
>"I still believe the answer to any problem lies with the people. I believe in states' rights. I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level, and I believe we've distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the Constitution to that federal establishment." -Ronald Reagan
>He went on to promise to "restore to states and local governments the power that properly belongs to them." The use of the phrase was seen by some as a tacit appeal to Southern white voters and a continuation of Richard Nixon's Southern strategy, while others argued it merely reflected his libertarian economic beliefs.
And we all know about the Republican Party's racist Southern Strategy, of course:
>In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans. As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right.
>If you can provide a link with meaningful substance, that counters the specific claims being made in the Texas lawsuit, or any other election lawsuit, I would like to see it.
Well, prucomaclu, aren't you ashamed of yourself for being so gullible, delusional, and Anti-American to think Texas's fraudulent lawsuit actually had a chance? Shame on you, and shame on Texas.
>The Supreme Court has smacked down the much-talked-about Texas lawsuit to overturn the results of the election.
>Days after rejecting a Pennsylvania case, the order from the Supreme Court reads Texas’ motion “is denied for lack of standing” and says “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.” [...]
>Furthermore, the complaint was riddled with falsehoods and unproven conspiracy theories of voter fraud that centered around a bogus statistical analysis that claimed there was only a “1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000” chance of Biden winning the four states. [...]
>“Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated,” Pennsylvania’s brief stated.
Here's the Supreme Court order rejecting Texas' attempt to throw out the results of the presidential election in four other states. The court declines to hear it; the only dispute is a technical one over the manner by which it is killed.
It's over.
The court's decision - that Texas lacks standing to bring this case - means it could not and did not reach the other issues. But these claims have all been rejected for many, many, many other reasons by other state and federal courts. Many.
Justices Alito and Thomas indicated that the court was (in their very consistent view) required to hear the case but that they too "would not grant other relief" - meaning they too wouldn't sign on to Texas' request for an injunction throwing out the election.
After all that, not one of the three Supreme Court justices nominated by President Trump made even a squeak in public to support this breathtaking attempt to invalidate the election he lost.
The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of
complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of
the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially
cognizable interest in the manner in which another State
conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed
as moot.
Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:
In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a
bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original
jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore
grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not
grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
CERTIORARI GRANTED
20-222 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, ET AL. V. AR TEACHER RETIREMENT, ET AL.
>5 big problems with Texas' bid to overturn Biden's win at the Supreme Court
>"This case is hopeless," said SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein, who argues frequently before the court.
Read it yourself, because I'm not summarizing it for you, since you're not arguing in good faith, just trying to waste people's time.
After you read that, can we both agree on the fact that Trump is a pathetic sore loser, who has absolutely no chance of overturning the election, which Joe Biden won fair and square, and by Trump's own definition and words, won it in a "massive landslide" (except that Biden ALSO won the popular vote, which Trump LOST both times)?
>Biden On Track For What Trump Once Called ‘Massive Landslide’ Electoral College Victory
>Democratic candidate Joe Biden is on track to win the presidency, but if he wins in all the states where he’s currently ahead, the victory won’t even be close by some peoples’ standards: namely, President Donald Trump’s standards.
>Biden leads Trump in Georgia, Pennsylvania and Nevada, which, along with Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona and the rest of the states that have been called for him, would give him exactly 306 electoral votes.
>If that number seems familiar, it’s because Trump won that same number of electoral votes in 2016 after capturing Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan himself, even as he lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.
>In an interview with Fox News host Chris Wallace in Dec. 2016, Trump dismissed a question about Russian interference in the election by boasting “we had a massive landslide victory, as you know, in the electoral college, I guess the final number is 306 and [Clinton] is down to a very low number.”
>Two of Trump’s electors ended up defecting in 2016, along with five of Clinton’s, giving him 304 to her 227, which he tweeted was a “MASSIVE (304-227) Electoral College landslide victory!”
>Biden is also on track to win the popular vote by an even larger margin than Clinton did: he currently leads by over 4 million votes, nearly 3 points, according to the New York Times.
That lawsuit you're so excited about is a complete fraud, and you should feel ashamed for falling for such a transparent pack of lies. It's just recycling bogus claims that have ALREADY been disproven in court. But of course you believe it because you want to. Prepare to be sorely disappointed by reality. Texas has again made itself a laughing stock, and an embarrassment to the rest of the country.
>Battleground states file fiery condemnations of election results lawsuit as 106 House GOP back Texas
>Officials in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia have filed ferocious condemnations of the Texas lawsuit in the Supreme Court that seeks to overturn election results in the four key battleground states won by Joe Biden.
>The Pennsylvania filing describes the move by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, and supported by Donald Trump, as using a “cacophony of bogus claims” in support of a “seditious abuse of the judicial process”, resting on “a surreal alternate reality”.
>State Attorney General Josh Shapiro wrote: “Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas's preferred candidate for president is legally indefensible and is an affront to principles of constitutional democracy."
>Mr Trump lost the four key states, and the action by Texas is an attempt to invalidate millions of votes, thereby potentially swinging the election to him. The states’ court filings come as 106 Republican lawmakers signed onto the Texas brief in support fo delaying their certification of presidential electors.
>The Pennsylvania filing continues: “Texas's effort to get this court to pick the next president has no basis in law or fact. The court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.”
>In her state’s filing, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel described the challenge as “unprecedented” and “without factual foundation or a valid legal basis". She wrote: “The election in Michigan is over. Texas comes as a stranger to this matter and should not be heard here.”
>Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul called the lawsuit an "extraordinary intrusion into Wisconsin's and the other defendant states' elections, a task that the Constitution leaves to each state."
>Attorney general of Georgia Chris Carr concurred and argued that the case does not meet the standard for the court to hear it: “Texas presses a generalised grievance that does not involve the sort of direct state-against-state controversy required for original jurisdiction.”
>He continued: "And in any case, there is another forum in which parties who (unlike Texas) have standing can challenge Georgia's compliance with its own election laws: Georgia's own courts."
All you've proven is that you're "unquestioning", which is why you're parroting disproven lies. But not one shred of proof for your claims about election fraud. The only widespread instances of fraud are the claims you're parroting.
You mean the "widely scorned" Texas election lawsuit? That's bullshit. But you wouldn't know that, being so unquestioning and gullible.
Funny how Texas, which has historically been so concerned about "States Rights" (a euphemistic dog whistle for the right to own slaves), is suddenly so busy sticking their nose into other state's rights.
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/09/944744105/trump-asks-supreme-...
Trump Asks Supreme Court To Let Him Join Widely Scorned Texas Election Lawsuit
Election experts scoffed this week when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced he would be filing a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against four key states in an attempt to block presidential electors from finalizing Joe Biden's election victory.
But now President Trump and 17 states he carried are joining that effort.
Officials in the states targeted in the suit — Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — derided it as nothing more than an unfounded publicity stunt.
The lawsuit may be a typically adept Trump move to get attention, but election law experts said he has little chance of getting the Supreme Court to support his move.
As election law expert Richard Hasen put it about the Texas filing, "This is a press release masquerading as a lawsuit. ... What utter garbage. Dangerous garbage, but garbage."
Just how little legal support there is for the lawsuit is evidenced by who signed the briefs asking the high court to intervene. Trump's brief was not signed by acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall or any other Justice Department official. Rather, the brief was signed by John Eastman, a conservative law professor at Chapman University. (A Trump campaign statement said the president intervened "in his personal capacity as candidate for re-election.")
The Texas brief was not signed by the state's solicitor general, Kyle Hawkins. Paxton, who signed the Texas brief, remains under indictment over securities fraud and is also facing an FBI investigation on bribery and abuse of office allegations.
All of the briefs filed so far are in the form of a motion seeking permission to sue the states in the Supreme Court. As legal experts have noted, it is unclear what legal standing Trump, Texas or the 17 states supporting their move have for challenging the results of elections in other states.
Moreover, with the Electoral College slated to meet next week, this legal action amounts to little more than an eleventh hour Hail Mary pass. It is more like trying to stop the game clock from ticking when all the players are walking off the field.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZmyFid7FRg&ab_channel=LateN...
Trump and Texas File New Election Lawsuit After Supreme Court Rejection: A Closer Look
Seth takes a closer look at the Supreme Court rejecting a lawsuit seeking to block Pennsylvania from certifying its electoral votes for Joe Biden and the GOP attempting another Hail Mary pass to overturn the election results.