@x96petersen1, you just advanced to level 3!

@Zuluzeit I agree, a decision so fast seems impossible. I have watched hours of state legislature hearings, how can none of the evidence matter -- this is for our commander in chief.

@Roadtrek Girl Disclosure statement: Almost everything I said about the case was sarcastic. It was a junk idea of a case, filed solely for political theater posturing. The one thing I think would have liked to see was SCOTUS waiting a couple more days, even though everyone knew their decision was a foregone conclusion.

Otherwise, everything I said was facetious. I'm not only liberal, I'm a real bastard too. Just didn't want you to get the wrong impression.

@Uncivil Law glad I watched to the point in your video where you explained why it was a "good" thing the case was dismissed in the long run, makes me feel better.

@Zuluzeit at least you are honest and funny too, I think.

Hahaha thanks...I think.

Been checking this thread for a minute and I just want you to know I appreciate your input. Brings it all together for someone who doesn't have the insight.

funny and honest are good things 🙂

@Uncivil Law, you just advanced to level 5!

What does it mean to have a motion to file a bill of complaint as per the SCOTUS case?

I'm a little confused about the Supreme Court's decision to deny the Texas lawsuit. It seems to me that it was denied, essentially, because Texas has no business in how Pennsylvania (and others) hold their elections. Is this correct? If so, what would be the reasoning for this?

I think Wednesday's show might have been censored

@lapeterson they effectively said that Texashas not suffered an injury that would give them standing to sue.

I think it boils down to they were scared TX would present a good case they would have to agree with.

So the only way to not open that can of worms was to deny it on a technicality.

The video from Wednesday is still there. How do you think it's censored?

YouTube. Maybe it's just my tv

Justices Alito and Thomas wrote a brief statement. They said they would have accepted the request but would NOT have granted the relief

The other justices denied the request

A good case? 🤣

With this decision, the 2020 presidential election is officially done. If the SC didn’t grant this suit, they won’t grant the rest..

The “platform” strikes again

@JonM16, you just advanced to level 7!

Put down the conspiracy stick 🍿

Hm. That seems odd. It makes sense to me that, if these decisions made without approval of the legislature did affect the election, it would have negatively affected (injured?) the comparative worth of Texan votes.

As does voter suppression conservative states love

But the feds cant step on states rights on a whim nor can other states stomp on each other

Wasn't Texas suing because each of those four states acted unconstitutionally because a member of the executive/judicial branch modified voter laws without the involvement of the legislative branch? It seems fair that another state should be able to step in and call them on it.

The issue is not states stepping on stages. The issue is the non legislative branches stepping on the legislative branch in the states in question.

State supreme courts didnt think so their case was weak

Courts are not politically impartial even though they are supposed to be.

@Trista, you just advanced to level 1!

They also asked for a staggering remedy which steps on more checks and balances doing harm to citizens rights uninvolved in the actions

Also, had the relief TX wanted been granted, it would not necessarily overturn a win for Biden. The legislative bodies of the states could have chose to send a slate for Biden.

Very important message to patriots https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1337548142196129792?s=12

🤷 not up to them up to voters

No, it actually is not. Most states have set up a system where they use the voters votes to determine the slate. But the legislators having the power to choose the electors is part of the checks and balances. If there is an issue with the votes, they are the closest to the people to get to the bottom of what happened. If they make a choice that doesn't reflect thier constituents, they will damage thier career.

All the states choose electors by the vote. It's not a coincidence we built protections into the system to stop legislatures from exercising that power after they saw the results of the election. State electors shouldn't be flipping elections based on junk accusations that cannot stand up to cursory court proceedings. Congressional bodies can absolutely put blocks in place on themselves and they have to follow the rules to change that.

They voluntarily made it so it takes 2/3 in some states to do this. They voluntarily made it so it takes governors permission in others. This was to protect us from future Trumps.

I think we will have to agree to disagree here. Had Scotus taken the case, they could have clarified the constitution on this issue.

They were never going to pickup a case like this. It was filled with crazy witnesses and absurdities and misinformation even after they got past states bullying other states on their own laws.