Message from @JonM16
Discord ID: 786648075090395166
@Fefe, you just advanced to level 3!
Why would that guy be filing anything, then?
Some justices on the Supreme Court believe that SCOTUS has to hear lawsuits regarding states suing states
Interesting. The Kelly case is not on the Docket search anymore.
It seems to me that the most significant issues here, IMO, were barely skimmed over if not completely disregarded, resulted in eliminating any perceived transparency and fairness in the election results. These issues, being the “chain of custody” and the rules [of having Dem. and GOP pole workers/watchers sharing in the process], are absolutely vital and must be strictly enforced in each and every election going forward. I honestly believe that if this election had been properly supervised, followed the lawful procedures, and pole watchers had been allowed to actually observe and given a real voice in the challenge process, that the outcome could have been much less contentious. By properly following the procedures, any reported problems that might arise could be easily verified and proven by examining the logs and signatures in the chain of custody, putting the controversy to rest. And as long as there is accountability and strict adherence on chain of custody in the voter registration office in verifying the signature and residential address of the voters, the process should be considered fair and legitimate to all. If this election had been operated honestly and correctly, there would have been no reason what so ever for election officials not to simply verify any concerns or challenge to the vote counting as they occurred. We will experience the same if not a more serious situation in a few weeks if the election laws and procedures are not completely understood and precisely complied with, under penalty of law with serious consequences.
@SassyCate NO
😌
@SassyCate write fast and little
@TomWiliam += One Past Last Jedi, you just advanced to level 5!
no???😥
!rank
@SassyCate do summary
brevity is not my strong point, But I said all i need to say...
Have the 4 states responses to SCOTUS been made public yet?
They are due by 3pm.
I was hoping that they wouldn't wait until the 3pm EST deadline...
21 states
It grew?
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia, vs. PA, WI, MI & GA these are all the states that are in the lawsuit
PA basically said that if they take it, it will make many people mad (or maybe that was the Kelly suit)
@ocasioauriel7, you just advanced to level 2!
I would take every bit of the time given if I was in their boots. They need to make sure every word is correct. They will have teams of people proof reading it before it’s turned in.
I didn’t know Alaska and Ohio had joined.
Ok so he agrees but didn't join
Alaska didn’t have the time to join
Fair enough... I can't see SCOTUS not hearing Texas v. Penn... Way too many states have joined Texas for it to be ignored. But you are right if I were a lawyer and I was drafting that response... It probably would not be filed with the court until 2:59PM EST... not to annoy everyone watching but to make sure everything is perfect. Also, in all honesty though if I were drafting the response, I would do so in such a way that invited the SCOTUS to take the case and make a lasting precedence on behalf of the defense, and not to dismiss it on a standing or other potentially procedural issue, etc. Dismissing this without reviewing the merits would create an even bigger clusterf@#k.
That said. I am on the side of the plaintiffs here. There were some potentially major Constitutional Issues in those 4 states. And the best remedy I could think of is to return the decision to the state legislatures as the Constitution says the legislature has the exclusive power to choose the electors and let them make a decision on the electors they send to vote.
PA response is a riot... Calling Texas seditious....
Did they respond?
Oh, boy, did they!
But, ultimately, this is exactly what we're looking for. DO NOT WANT a Chinese proxy as president, and their election shenanigans have put us at risk of having a chinese proxy as president, vice president, and if you look at his cabinet picks... It's gonna be a bad trip.
"The authority to adjudicate original disputes between States is of a “delicate and grave* * * character,” Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 15 (1900), because it calls upon the Courtto exercise the “extraor-dinary” power “to control the conduct of one state at the suit of another,”
"The “model case” for exercise of original jurisdic-tion is an interstate dispute “of such seriousness that it would amount to casus belliif the States were fully sovereign.” Texas,462 U.S.at 571, n.18"
I mean... Yeah... That's kind of what this is.
Do you think the DNC want a lasting precedent from this? Do they really want to open the door for the GOP to commit overt fraud every election?
They opened the door to this... Should have run their elections fairly, openly and securely...
Michigan also filed