Go back
Supreme Court Rejects Texas Lawsuit

Supreme Court Rejects Texas Lawsuit

Debates

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
15 Dec 20

@metal-brain said
You didn't answer my question.

I don't have a problem with that ruling as long as there is another way to have the case heard by the SCOTUS before legal options become impractical because of time limitations.

Is that possible? If not, that is very wrong. It must at least be possible. Isn't that obvious to the politically unbiased?
What's "obvious to the politically unbiased" is that Trump and his allies had ample opportunity to produce evidence of fraud sufficient to effect the result of the election in their numerous lawsuits and failed to do so.

Complaints about election procedures should have been litigated BEFORE the election, not after you lose it:

"Over and over again, judges have noted that the pro-Trump legal effort could just as well have challenged the election rules before the election results went against them.

A key — and unusually close decision — from the Wisconsin state Supreme Court on Monday noted that an absentee ballot form the Trump team objected to had in fact been used for more than a decade (including during Trump’s 2016 win) with no legal challenge.

“Penalizing the voters election officials serve and the other candidates who relied on this long-standing guidance is beyond unfair,” the state Supreme Court said. “The Campaign sat on its hands, waiting until after the election, despite the fact that this ‘application’ form was in place for over a decade.”

It was hardly the first time judges have noted the tardy challenges. Just this weekend, U.S. District Judge Brett H. Ludwig, who was appointed by Trump, offered a similar rebuke after state and federal courts said such challenges should be filed before the election.

“I don’t think I heard a very good explanation today as to why the plaintiffs didn’t raise these issues in advance of the election when the guidance was issued,” Ludwig said.

Another judge whom Trump had put on his Supreme Court shortlist, William Pryor, also agreed with a lower-court ruling that said pro-Trump lawyer L. Lin Wood had plenty of time to complain about Georgia’s election rules before Trump lost. Pryor cited the doctrine of laches, which holds that a claim can’t just be brought when it is suddenly convenient for the plaintiff.

“This procedure has been in place for at least three elections since March, including the general election on November 3, 2020,” Pryor wrote. “Over one million Georgians voted by absentee ballot in the general election. No one challenged the settlement agreement until the filing of this action. By then, the general election returns had been tallied and a statewide hand recount of the presidential election results was underway.”

Pryor ruled that Wood had no standing to bring the case, but added that even if he did, the laches doctrine meant that “he could have sued eight months earlier, yet he waited until two weeks after the election.”

The Pennsylvania state Supreme Court has offered perhaps the biggest rebuke on this count. It noted that the law at issue in the Trump team’s case — Act 77, which was passed by the GOP-controlled state legislature — was a year old. This was the first case that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear, before its Texas decision on Friday.

Here’s what the state Supreme Court ruled:

Petitioners’ challenge violates the doctrine of laches given their complete failure to act with due diligence in commencing their facial constitutional challenge, which was ascertainable upon Act 77’s enactment. It is well-established that “[l]aches is an equitable doctrine that bars relief when a complaining party is guilty of want of due diligence in failing to promptly institute an action to the prejudice of another.”
Petitioners filed this facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory provisions more than one year after the enactment of Act 77. At the time this action was filed on November 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 Primary Election and the November 2020 General Election and the final ballots in the 2020 General Election were being tallied, with the results becoming seemingly apparent. Nevertheless, Petitioners waited to commence this litigation until days before the county boards of election were required to certify the election results to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Thus, it is beyond cavil [i.e. a standard of frivolous objection] that Petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim. Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from Petitioners’ failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory scheme, as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-second-biggest-problem-with-trumps-election-challenges/ar-BB1bV9OI?li=BBnbfcL

k
Flexible

The wrong side of 60

Joined
22 Dec 11
Moves
37304
Clock
15 Dec 20
2 edits

@metal-brain said
"2 judges saying they would like to hear the 'evidence' but basically saying it was all bogus anyway."

The case wasn’t rejected on the merits the case. It was rejected on standing.

If they didn't hear it how could they know it is bogus? Are you lying again? I think you are making that up.

What is your source of information?
Because it was based on the unconstitutional premise of one state telling another state how to run their own elections.
Texas wasn’t entering any evidence of fraud it was simply trying to invalidate millions of votes on the basis that they went to the wrong guy. There were states that trump won which made the same changes as the states Texas was trying to take to court. Would you be surprised to learn that Texas did not include them in its complaint.

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22641
Clock
15 Dec 20

@no1marauder said
What's "obvious to the politically unbiased" is that Trump and his allies had ample opportunity to produce evidence of fraud sufficient to effect the result of the election in their numerous lawsuits and failed to do so.

Complaints about election procedures should have been litigated BEFORE the election, not after you lose it:

"Over and over again, judges have noted ...[text shortened]... n-us/news/politics/the-second-biggest-problem-with-trumps-election-challenges/ar-BB1bV9OI?li=BBnbfcL
The case wasn’t rejected on the merits the case. It was rejected on standing. The SCOTUS didn't want to hear the evidence.

The Trump legal team produced evidence in Michigan. I provided you with that evidence and you refused to watch it. I told you to never claim Trump didn't have evidence again.

You just can't stop lying, can you? First you said there was no evidence, then you said not enough evidence, now you are simply refusing to see the evidence and lying about it.

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
15 Dec 20

@metal-brain said
The case wasn’t rejected on the merits the case. It was rejected on standing. The SCOTUS didn't want to hear the evidence.

The Trump legal team produced evidence in Michigan. I provided you with that evidence and you refused to watch it. I told you to never claim Trump didn't have evidence again.

You just can't stop lying, can you? First you said there was no evid ...[text shortened]... en you said not enough evidence, now you are simply refusing to see the evidence and lying about it.
You should really stop falsely calling people "liars" though this seems like your only debating technique.

The "evidence" that you alluded to was presented to Courts in Michigan. They found it: A) Not credible; and B) Legally insufficient and dismissed all Trump's and his allies cases with prejudice.

You have been informed of this multiple times on this site.
.

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22641
Clock
15 Dec 20

@kevcvs57 said
Because it was based on the unconstitutional premise of one state telling another state how to run their own elections.
Texas wasn’t entering any evidence of fraud it was simply trying to invalidate millions of votes on the basis that they went to the wrong guy. There were states that trump won which made the same changes as the states Texas was trying to take to court. Would you be surprised to learn that Texas did not include them in its complaint.
"Texas wasn’t entering any evidence of fraud it was simply trying to invalidate millions of votes on the basis that they went to the wrong guy."

Texas wasn’t entering any evidence of fraud, that much is true. The rest of your statement is incorrect. It was about whether or not those other states violated the constitution by violating their own election laws. He was trying to invalidate millions of votes on the basis of the US constitution.

Who becomes the POTUS is in the interest of all states, so it can be argued the SCOTUS made the wrong decision on that basis. If another legal avenue was possible given the time limitations that unquestionably exist, I would agree with the ruling. Because there doesn't seem to be one, the decision cannot possibly be the right one.

A deeply flawed system should not be ignored in this way. Instead of correcting the flaw, the flaw is now ingrained in the system to prevent any election fraud from being revealed in the future regardless of which party is alleging it.

The SCOTUS should hear the argument. If not with Texas as the plaintiff then another way should be made possible within the time restraints.

It is really a no brainer, but sh76 and no1 are democrats who know I am right but prefer to not acknowledge it. You are too.

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22641
Clock
15 Dec 20

@no1marauder said
You should really stop falsely calling people "liars" though this seems like your only debating technique.

The "evidence" that you alluded to was presented to Courts in Michigan.

You have been informed of this multiple times on this site.
.
You are lying.

I provided you with the evidence and you refused to watch it. The rest of your comments are assumption based, not evidence based.

If evidence of election fraud was shot down by the courts in North Korea would that prove your very same assumption based logic that it must be a legitimate ruling?

Ponderable
chemist

Linkenheim

Joined
22 Apr 05
Moves
669871
Clock
15 Dec 20

@metal-brain said
You are lying.

I provided you with the evidence and you refused to watch it. The rest of your comments are assumption based, not evidence based.

If evidence of election fraud was shot down by the courts in North Korea would that prove your very same assumption based logic that it must be a legitimate ruling?
No1 is Right and you are the liar.

There is no evidence.

If there was Trump Campaign would have used it in court cases. If they didn't, there is no evidence. Those lawyers are fools (for going to court with Nothing in thier Hands) but they are not so BIG fools as you make them (having something and rather present rubbish)

sh76
Civis Americanus Sum

New York

Joined
26 Dec 07
Moves
17585
Clock
15 Dec 20
3 edits

@metal-brain said
You didn't answer my question.

I don't have a problem with that ruling as long as there is another way to have the case heard by the SCOTUS before legal options become impractical because of time limitations.

Is that possible? If not, that is very wrong. It must at least be possible. Isn't that obvious to the politically unbiased?
Okay, let me start by saying that in general, I've been unimpressed by the Trump election lawsuits. Yeah, there is some suspicious activity here and there but in a country of 330 million, you're going to have a little of that here and there. There's every reason to believe that the election was basically run cleanly and fairly. I say this only because I don't want my post to be construed as defending the Trump lawsuits.

That being said, your point regarding standing is interesting. It's well established that under Article III, the federal courts can only hear a case when a party has alleged a legally cognizable injury. There are many cases in which facially plausible injuries have been found inadequate (Google "Allen v. Wright" and "Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife" ).

Your point is that the standing requirement should be dispensed with when doing so is necessary for the case to be heard in time for it to matter. The Supreme Court does use a similar argument to decide cases that are moot, as in Roe v. Wade, where the case was decided long after "Jane Roe" gave birth, making the case moot, in truth; and just a couple of weeks ago, when the Court overturned Cuomo's cap of 10 or 25 people on religious services even though at that moment, the plaintiffs were not subject to that cap.

Your point does make some sense. The point of standing is to ensure that the plaintiffs have the incentive to fully litigate the case. If the plaintiff can show other reasons for the incentive and that the case must be heard now or never does seem to be a reasonable exception to carve out of the standing rule.

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
15 Dec 20

@metal-brain said
You are lying.

I provided you with the evidence and you refused to watch it. The rest of your comments are assumption based, not evidence based.

If evidence of election fraud was shot down by the courts in North Korea would that prove your very same assumption based logic that it must be a legitimate ruling?
What exactly am I "lying" about?

No, I didn't watch your 5 hour video but that wasn't even in a court. But as I pointed out then, the same people being called as witnesses at that legislative hearing had submitted affidavits to the Courts in support of lawsuits made by Trump and his allies. And those lawsuits were dismissed.

This country isn't North Korea and grownups don't make such absurd claims just because their favored candidates lose elections.

k
Flexible

The wrong side of 60

Joined
22 Dec 11
Moves
37304
Clock
15 Dec 20

@metal-brain said
"Texas wasn’t entering any evidence of fraud it was simply trying to invalidate millions of votes on the basis that they went to the wrong guy."

Texas wasn’t entering any evidence of fraud, that much is true. The rest of your statement is incorrect. It was about whether or not those other states violated the constitution by violating their own election laws. He was try ...[text shortened]... r, but sh76 and no1 are democrats who know I am right but prefer to not acknowledge it. You are too.
No your wrong again they changed their election process to mitigate the election based potential for covid transmission.
It is unconstitutional for a state to interfere with or try to change the election process in another state.
The people of the individual states can challenge their own election process but another state cannot. That’s why the non evidence offered by Texas governor was thrown out unceremoniously by the SCOTUS, the good news is that Trump will probably give this crook his pardon just for trying.

sh76
Civis Americanus Sum

New York

Joined
26 Dec 07
Moves
17585
Clock
15 Dec 20

@kevcvs57 said
No your wrong again they changed their election process to mitigate the election based potential for covid transmission.
It is unconstitutional for a state to interfere with or try to change the election process in another state.
The people of the individual states can challenge their own election process but another state cannot. That’s why the non evidence offered by Tex ...[text shortened]... by the SCOTUS, the good news is that Trump will probably give this crook his pardon just for trying.
Pardon? What are you talking about? Who needs a pardon?

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22641
Clock
15 Dec 20

@no1marauder said
What exactly am I "lying" about?

No, I didn't watch your 5 hour video but that wasn't even in a court. But as I pointed out then, the same people being called as witnesses at that legislative hearing had submitted affidavits to the Courts in support of lawsuits made by Trump and his allies. And those lawsuits were dismissed.

This country isn't North Korea and grownups don't make such absurd claims just because their favored candidates lose elections.
"This country isn't North Korea and grownups don't make such absurd claims just because their favored candidates lose elections."

So grownups don't live in North Korea? Trump is not my favored candidate and you know it. I didn't vote for him and he got what he deserved since he attempted to overthrow a democracy in Venezuela. Remember when I called for his impeachment?

This is about democracy, not partisan bias. What happens when an election is stolen from a democrat and the SCOTUS refuses to accept the case? Have you thought that far ahead yet?

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
15 Dec 20

@sh76 said
Pardon? What are you talking about? Who needs a pardon?
You really haven't been keeping up: https://www.courthousenews.com/fbi-subpoenas-texas-ag-ken-paxton-after-alleged-bribery-reports/

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22641
Clock
15 Dec 20

@kevcvs57 said
No your wrong again they changed their election process to mitigate the election based potential for covid transmission.
It is unconstitutional for a state to interfere with or try to change the election process in another state.
The people of the individual states can challenge their own election process but another state cannot. That’s why the non evidence offered by Tex ...[text shortened]... by the SCOTUS, the good news is that Trump will probably give this crook his pardon just for trying.
How do you know? You haven't heard heard all of the evidence.
Are you a mind reader?

The allegation is that states violated their own election laws in violation of the constitution. If you can list all of the allegations in a document go for it, but you are omitting important facts that make it apparent you are less than informed.

sh76
Civis Americanus Sum

New York

Joined
26 Dec 07
Moves
17585
Clock
15 Dec 20

@metal-brain said
It is really a no brainer, but sh76 and no1 are democrats who know I am right but prefer to not acknowledge it. You are too.
FYI (not that is matters), but I de-regsitered as a Dem after the primary. I'm now an Independent and a former Republican and former Democrat (as I'm proud to announce on my Twitter handle. If the GOP even goes back to being the party of McCain and Romney, I'll register as a Republican. In the meantime, I'm an independent who will register in whatever primary is more interesting as each election approaches.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.