GDT: 11/3/20, Election Day, Donald J. Trump vs. Joseph R. Biden

Status
Not open for further replies.
nsacpi said:
No. The motivation is to overturn a result that someone is not happy with. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Something is either constitutional or not.

Doesn’t matter what your elementary school feud means in your mind we live under those laws in this country. PA and other states violated these laws. It’s open and shut.

Now we will havE to see what remedy is granted by SCOTUS.
 
EovxBroXEAEspoU
 
thethe said:
It is a straight up fact that these states changed their election laws in an unconstitutional manner. What is the argument that what they did was constitutional?
Click to expand...

This is 3 minutes after my post? Did you read 52 pages that fast!? That is super impressive.
 
thethe said:
Something is either constitutional or not.

Doesn’t matter what your elementary school feud means in your mind we live under those laws in this country. PA and other states violated these laws. It’s open and shut.

Now we will havE to see what remedy is granted by SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

I don't think Texas even has standing to sue other states over this. We'll see.
 
Dalyn said:
This is 3 minutes after my post? Did you read 52 pages that fast!? That is super impressive.
Click to expand...

What I wrote is the whole basis of the argument. How can anyone deny that PA changed their election laws in an unconstitutional manner. Everything else is irrelevant. That is the case that is being presented by Texas and the trump team.
 
Aside from the substantive constitutional arguments, which are weak, the fundamental problem is that these lawsuits were filed after the complainants saw an election outcome they didn't like. That is the motivation. It is beyond clear. If their motivation was the constitutional defects, they had plenty of time to file BEFORE the elections. The fact they are filing all these suits now just shows how all of this is being done in bad faith. It is an attack on constitutional democracy and it would be nice to see one of the judges call them out for it.
 
nsacpi said:
Aside from the substantive constitutional arguments, which are weak, the fundamental problem is that these lawsuits were filed after the complainants saw an election outcome they didn't like. That is the motivation. It is beyond clear. If their motivation was the constitutional defects, they had plenty of time to file BEFORE the elections. The fact they are filing all these suits now just shows how all of this is being done in bad faith. It is an attack on constitutional democracy and it would be nice to see one of the judges call them out for it.
Click to expand...

This is the weak argument that has resulted in the dismissal of cases at the lower courts.

Basically you are saying you have to know what illegal acts are happening and catch them before Election Day. So you prescribe no relief to someone who was successfully robbed?

Asinine.
 
thethe said:
Of course they do. All states are in a contract to nominate a president.
Click to expand...

Actually no. The injured party if PA's election procedures are unconstitutional would be either the voters of PA or the candidates. Not Texas. I would be surprised if Texas has standing to sue in this case.
 
Dalyn said:
EovxBroXEAEspoU
Click to expand...

I’m reading that this doesn’t even mean that case has been settled just the relief prescribed so it’s still unclear whether or not this case will still be heard or potentially merged with the Texas case.
 
nsacpi said:
Actually no. The injured party if PA's election procedures are unconstitutional would be either the voters of PA or the candidates. Not Texas. I would be surprised if Texas has standing to sue in this case.
Click to expand...

Texas voters are disenfranchised if other states are changing election rules in a manner that goes against what the constitution sets out for them.
 
thethe said:
This is the weak argument that has resulted in the dismissal of cases at the lower courts.
Click to expand...

Dude. SCOTUS just dismissed the same argument brought by people in PA with much better standing to sue than the AG of Texas.

The Texas filing will either fail due to lack of standing or due to the same reasons that caused the PA case to fail.
 
thethe said:
Texas voters are disenfranchised if other states are changing election rules in a manner that goes against what the constitution sets out for them.
Click to expand...

Even if this were true, I GUARANTEE you that the answer won't be to disenfranchise a ton more voters in response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top