@jfindley, you just advanced to level 11!

But really..there are only 9 people in this country who opinion actually matters right now.

My oldest son whines sometimes that his younger brothers get away with things he couldn't when he was their age, too...

My older children took that concept and learned to use their younger sibling to get what they want from me..

You're just a softie, then... 😉

https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/texas-fraud-suit/

Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers.

I mean I would think if rules were changed to an extent to affect a federal election and impact all states such as Texas I would think that gives them standing

The argument may be that the other State(s) Violated the US Constitution and as a result Texas suffered a Harm.

Yeah that is what I was thinking

This people are working over time hours..

@thebrodys. They only have to convince Five of them...

https://www.scribd.com/document/487355893/Scotus-Filing

The PA Respondent's case is really interesting... They claim that Act 77 (which is a statute and never intended to be an amendment to the PA constitution - despite claims that the legislature "forgot" to vote on it again) made a new class of voting called "Mail-In" that is distinctly different than Absentee, which is spelled out in the Act itself and cite precedents where PA legislatures made similar changes to the voting laws in the past. It also says that there is a clause in Act 77 itself that says any claims about the constitutionality of Act 77 had to be filed within 180 days of its passing, because they needed to time to deal with any potential issues ahead of the primaries and election. They then go on to breakdown all of the ways it should fail - technically and on merit. It's very compelling to a lay person like me.

Ok, ok. The last billion attempts were pathetic but the next one is the biggest yet! Just a couple more days!

@TaLoN132. Yes I find it interesting that they admit they changed the Law on Election Process. They just forgot a minor step of Amending the State Constitution to do it!

...and then held that in their back pocket to exploit if things didn't go their way.

Like hey guys it's cool we didn't change the constitution, just the voting rules

Don't even trip

Votes in good faith. Will of the people is known. Game over.

@Zuluzeit it is either extremely Stupid or Brilliant?....lol

Apparently, this has been done that way in PA before... They cite much precedent to that effect.

@William Dinan hahaha little from column A. Little from column B.

@William Dinan PA is allowed to decide for themselves how they maintain their constitution. Every state has their own way of doing things. The US Constitution is shy on specifics on what or how each legislature is supposed to go about doing things on purpose.

...unless it's inconvenient. Then federal intervention.

Which is what everyone wants, at the end of the day, right?

Well that is the Million Dollar Legal Question.

@William Dinan In GA, the legislature voted to create an election board that was empowered to make decisions about how to conduct elections. TX now doesn't like that GA decided to do that, so now they want to whine that GA is different than them.

To be fair, Texas is the boss of Georgia, soooo...

They are bigger...

Indeed. Nuff said!

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1336110874021535744?s=20

Classy.

I am trying to understand Ted Cruz's thought process... We all know he wants to run for President in 2024. Is he afraid that he would have to take on Trump in 2024, if he doesn't win the election. Or, is he going through the theater of trying to garner the favor of Trump supporters by appearing to do everything possible to help in a losing effort - and figure that Trump will be mired in legal issues the next 4 years and will not be likely to run in 2024?

@TaLoN132. And Yes that has been a Argument for Striking Down many CFR's that Congress has given Executive Agencies the Power to Adopt. The question becomes did they go beyond the Scope or Authority of the Legislation?

@TaLoN132 Good question. I think they have dropped the pretense that this is an honest inquiry. Being associated with pushing a false narrative now holds no peril. We are well past anything resembling election fraud. It has moved into the arena of stealing it by any technicality they can try.

How can the law say overrule the constitution like that? Did they call it the "no takesbacksies clause"?

Presupposing it is unconstitutional.

It's odd... I think that Ted Cruz could kiss any hope of ever being President if he is party to Congress invalidating enough electors to prevent Biden from reaching 270. The backlash would be merciless.

And one could argue the opposite? That is for the Courts to settle.

@TaLoN132 Not if they pull it off. Lol