Replies

Proximate cause vs cause-in-fact???

What are GOCs?

So who gets to tell Roberts that he is fired for failure to do his job?

“Gocs” means Govs.

"[…] SCOTUS ruled that it could not prove Texas ot [sic] its citizens suffered harm by the processes by which another state selects electors and writes election rules."

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

The institutionally indoctrinated, anti-Trump SCOTUS is bluffing the harm excuse imo.

More specifically, it's been argued in related threads that Justice Joseph Story had explained, in his 19th century Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, a time capsule that would enable future generations of Americans to better understand how the clauses of the young Constitution, at least through the Bill of Rights (correction welcome), are best interpreted.

Regarding the recent Texas v. Pennsylvania appeal which the Court wrongly decided not to hear imo, Justice Story had clarified the intentions of the delegates to the Con-Con for the “state v. state clause” in the Constitution’s Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 (3.2.1).

"Article III, Section 2, Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States [emphasis added];—between a State and Citizens of another State; -- between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

Based on the history of conflicts between original colonies, Story had explained that the states v. state clause of 3.2.1 was made to obligate the Court to unconditionally (my word) give conflicted states a last resort to try to settle their differences to avoid the sword.

§ 1674. "Under the confederation, authority was given to the national government, to hear and determine, (in the manner pointed out in the article,) in the last resort, on appeal, all disputes and differences between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatsoever [!!! emphases added]. Before the adoption of this instrument, as well as afterwards, very irritating and vexatious controveries existed between several of the states, in respect to soil, jurisdiction, and boundary; and threatened the most serious public mischiefs. Some of these controversies were heard and determined by the court of commissioners, appointed by congress. But, notwithstanding these adjudications, the conflict was maintained in some cases, until after the establishment of the present constitution." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3, 1833, The University of Chicago Press
§ 1675. "Before the revolution, controversies between the colonies, concerning the extent of their rights of soil, territory, jurisdiction, and boundary, under their respective charters, were heard and determined before the king in council, who exercised original jurisdiction therein, upon the principles of feudal sovereignty. This jurisdiction was often practically asserted, as in the case of the dispute between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, decided by the privy council, in 1679; and in the case of the dispute between New Hampshire and New York, in 1764. Lord Hardwicke recognised this appellate jurisdiction in the most deliberate manner, in the great case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore. The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time. Some tribunal, exercising such authority, is essential to prevent an appeal to the sword, and a dissolution of the government [emphasis added]. That it ought to be established under the national, rather than under the state, government; or, to speak more properly, that it can be safely established under the former only, would seem to be a position self-evident, and requiring no reasoning to support it. It may justly be presumed, that under the national government in all controversies of this sort, the decision will be impartially made according to the principles of justice; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality, by confiding it to the highest judicial tribunal." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,1833, The University of Chicago Press.

In other words, the only so-called standing that two conflicted states need to present their evidence to the Court is that they are states imo.

But instead of examining evidence to try to help calm down conflicted states as convention delegates had intended for SCOTUS to do to promote domestic tranquility insured in the Preamble to the Constitution, the corrupt Court is wrongly helping to divide the country, supporting the fraudulent election of Biden imo.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility [emphasis added], provide for the common defence [British?], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Corrections, insights welcome.

States are not allowed, as in Pennsylvania, to do end runs around constitutional imperatives.

Unfortunately, they are. While I agree that a Gov, SOS and State SC, does not have constitutional authority to designate the time, manner or place electors are selected, The legislators can, as in the case with Pennsylvania, delegate by legislative act or inaction. It is the Pennsylvania legislators who have the constitutional mandate but until they fight it, they have have delighted by Inaction. Now The President can file against the US House of Representatives if they received a written objection from a member of the house, signed by at least 1 senator and did not follow the Constitutional mandate on how to resolve it. If they shrug it off and count objected electors, Members of Congress, states and Trump would all have standing and can immediately approach the SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS claims no standing, Trump is either done or he will be the most recent president to use the insurection act.

When the monstrous electoral fraud is allowed to stand in January then all hell will break loose. The USSC will have been revealed as just another evil part of totally illegitimate government forcing its tyrannical oppression on every Trump voter. The USA will finally be recognized as dead, dead, dead, with the Constitution no longer in effect anywhere. Then every sick thing that the USSC has forced on this country in the past fifty years, like unfettered abortion, homosexual “marriage,” enforced euthanasia, economic and cultural Marxism, unrestricted pornography, religious persecution, affirmative action discrimination, and so much more, will be expunged from every state that has the will to secede from what was once the USA. And there will be many red states and many red counties in blue states that will do just that. It will be like a snowball rolling downhill. It cannot be stopped by an illegitimate government with manpower problems facing a determined citizenry of 80 plus million people that have finally seen enough evil shoved down their throats like one big schitt sandwich.The Christmas bombing in Nashville is just the beginning.

Isn’t there anyone in Pennsylvania that has standing?

The problem was not the rules and process of other states. The problem was states utterly ignored those rules and process and rigged the election. National elections affect all of us, so by definition when a state rigs a national election we are are affected by it.