I too would enjoy a “Legal” section.
4 Likes
Why resort to using the word “nay-sayers” when the trumpsuits have lost 48 out of 49 times so far?
2 Likes
Ken Paxton just trying to get on that pre-emptive pardon list.
Good for Texas! Well done! 
I agree. This thread is interesting and i would hate to see it get lost in the regular election fraud thread.
I don’t know what you call forever. Before 1994 Democrats had held the state house for 112 of the previous 120 years. In the last couple of elections Democrats gained seats in both the State House & Senate. And Cruz won by only 2.6 points, which was a surprise. In 2016 Trump took Texas by 8.99 points. That fell off in 2020 to 5.58.
A lot will depend on how much Republicans can get away with when the new districts are drawn.
1 Like
I don’t expect to see the results overturned.
However…it does appear that executives in a number of states were playing loose with the voting rules, changing dates, when and where they had to be filed, plus sending out unsolicited ballots.
There was no justification for doing this.
If we are moving against a set of rules established by legislatures, as required by the Constitution, we are opening up the voting process to all sorts of manipulation.
Without that sort of thing, all these cases would not exist.
2 Likes
Yeah. I really enjoy them using state money to file a suit that won’t go anywhere.
I thought that Cons were against frivolous Government spending.
What cases? So far all I have seen is a lot of accusations without proof.
I also agree. The idea of a legal thread is interesting.
The legislature creates the law, and the executive executes the law.
The legal question is whether or not the actions of the executive were within the bounds of executing the laws as written. This is not a simple question to answer.
The basis for the Texas USSC file, is that Governors, Secretaries of State, Election officials, judges in these other states acted Unconstitutionally changing arbitrarily, election laws, counting procedures, voting methods, time intervals. Changes of this type are vested in and only by the State Legislatures. Actions, edicts taken outside this Constitutional Law, by illegal parties, in effect, disenfranchised voters in other states which comply with the Constitution. So, this is a Constitutional Crisis, demands USSC examine the issue.
2 Likes
Governors have historically had wide discretion during declared emergencies?
“Arbitrary” is not, at this point, established.
The Supreme Court’s next conference is Friday of this week.
Safe Harbor Day is today.
In an original action at the Supreme Court, the Plaintiff does not file a Bill of Complaint, but instead Leave to file a Bill of Complaint. Basically, the Supreme Court grants permission to bring the actual case. Typically (other than water war cases) leave is denied and the case ends. The Supreme Court typically denies leave without comment, leaving us to wonder WHY they dismissed the case.
In this case, they will likely deny leave without comment. I would suspect mootness being the reason as the Safe Harbor Date will have passed. Easy and convenient way for them to duck this case without having to touch the dis-merits of it. 
1 Like
Looks like the SC has agreed to hear the case. 
That’s what is being reported.
Is there a legal reason to leave out Arizona or Nevada?
Yeah, that’s the immediate argument. But even without emergency powers, there is always an extent of discretion inherent in turning words on paper into government action in the physical world.
It depends on the text of the law.
And in the cases of Wisconsin and PA, there were legislative acts and court decisions which directly addressed the pandemic?
True small-government conservatism at work!
1 Like