Re: US election thread?
Originally Posted by
Dr.Brad
Technically the Texas suit is that several states changed their own election laws without those states’ legislators being involved, in opposition to those states’ own laws. The reason it’ll fail is that the consequences Texas asks for is that both legal votes and (potential) illegal votes would be impossible (now) to separate. They can’t.
The US historically has gone from left-to-right and back again through all of its time, which has been good to keep the political and social “center” alive. This is a part of the bigger picture.
The case will fail for a multitude of reasons including:
1. Standing – in order to sue an entity has to show it suffered damages. Texas is awarded electors to vote for President under the US Constitution, Texas may appoint any electors is so chooses, Texas’ ability to appoint electors has not been impaired by elections in other states. I suspect the SCOTUS will dismiss this Case 9-0 on Standing alone.
2. Meritless Claim - The various claims are asinine, non-provable, debunked etc. There is no truth to the underlying facts upon which the Claim is based. This is clear and the Courts at all levels have agreed, no court has seriously ruled that any evidence exists. Audits, hand recounts and all other checking procedures have produced no evidence of voter fraud.
3. Remedy Sought But here is the craziest part of this entire lawsuit: The lawsuit asks for the SCOTUS to declare that the elections in the fours swing states were fraudulent and bar the legislatures from certifying the results. This would result in the various State legislatures being given the task of appointing a slate of electoral college electors. The states in question have Republican majority legislatures, and the Texas/Trump hope is said legislatures would appoint electors who will vote for Trump. Paxton acknowledged as much in an interview “We can't go back and fix it, but we can say, OK, let's transfer this to the legislature ... and let them to decide the outcome of the election. That would be a valid constitutional situation."
Here’s the twist: Every State Legislature Already has this Power!
Article II of the US Constitution specifically states:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”
This argument has been raised prior to the election and immediately thereafter. All it would have taken in Pennsylvania for example, would be a bill in the state legislature declaring that the legislature was choosing to ignore the election vote results, for any reason whatsoever, and would be appointing electors chosen by the legislature. This would be notionally constitutionally valid. This could have been done immediately after the election. Trump supporters publicly and privately pursued this idea both before and after the election in swing states controlled by Republicans.
So in essence, among the many, many, many, many [four seems appropriate] problems the lawsuit faces it is asking the Supreme Court for to order a remedy that the Defendant states already had at their disposal, and yet declined to use. Thankfully, not a single state legislature has taken the idea seriously.
12 team H-2-H 1 year league, daily roster changes, 3 goalie start minimum/week
2xC, 2xRW, 2xLW, 4xD, 3xUtil, 2xG, 5 Bench
G, A, P, PIM, PPP, SHP, GWG, SOG, Hits, W, SV%, GAA, SVs
C: C. Keller, C. Mittelstadt, B. Nelson, R. Strome,
LW: K. Connor, B. Tkachuk, J. Gaudreau, J. Marchessault, E. Rodrigues, A. Lafreniere
RW: K. Fiala, J. Bratt, T. Jeannot V. Arvidsson
D: R. Josi, J. Trouba, E. Gustafsson,
G: L. Thompson, F. Gustavsson, V. Vanecek
NO IR
