Posted on 12/27/2020 3:15:40 PM PST by raptor22
When the Supreme Court of Chief Justice John Roberts rejected the lawsuit of the state of Texas and other states that said the election rules in contested battleground states like Pennsylvania were unconstitutionally written, SCOTUS ruled that it could not prove Texas or its citizens suffered harm by the processes by which another state selects electors and writes election rules.
This of course is nonsense. Supreme Court Justices are like field goal kickers. They have one job. In the case of SCOTUS, it is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. We are a union of states, operating by the consent of the governed, and any state is harmed when another state is allowed to willy-nilly ignore its own state constitution and the Constitution of the United States in favor of the whims and agendas of activist governors and activist state courts.
What the U.S. Constitution actually says is the state legislatures determine things. The Electors Clause — Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution — provides that “[e]ach 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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at noisyroom.net ...
Massive fraud is ok though
Standing?
If the Convention of States Convention ever happens one of the admendments should Include a grand sweeping out of the Federal Offices and they cannot hold office again for at least 10 years ( and for the Supreme Coward judges NEVER)
========
“If the Convention of States Convention ever happens one of the admendments should Include...”
Indeed! I wondered why the states agreed to it in the first place. It was because it caused too many people to focus on their actions. Now they have comfortable sinecures , usually for life.
“I wondered why the states agreed to it in the first place.”
As I understand it, it was a progressive reform. It was thought that big corporations, especially in smaller states could easily bribe state legislators to elect compliant Senators. It was thought at the time that it would be impossible for corporations to be able bribe or influence the populations of entire states.
We, of course, have learned that that is not the case. Big money dumps routinely affect Senate elections as we are perhaps seeing in Georgia right now.
No legislature in any state in the nation has voted to name a competing slate of electors.
The essence of this article is complete BS.
When the Supreme Court of Chief Justice John Roberts rejected the lawsuit of the state of Texas and other states that said the election rules in contested battleground states like Pennsylvania were unconstitutionally written, SCOTUS ruled that it could not prove Texas or its citizens suffered harm by the processes by which another state selects electors and writes election rules.
First, Chief Justice Roberts did not rule anything.
What the Court stated in its ORDER was:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf
ORDER IN PENDING CASE155, ORIG. - TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL
The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitutionl. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.
Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
Only Alito and Thomas, JJ., would have permitted the Bill of Complaint to be filed. The justices were unanimous that no other relief would be granted.
SCOTUS did not rule "that it could not prove Texas or its citizens suffered harm by the processes by which another state selects electors and writes election rules." SCOTUS stated that Texas had not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. The Court found it lacked jurisdiction to make any ruling whatever on the merits.
Article 2, Sec. 1. Cl. 2 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: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."
That would have remarkable consequences. I find it so amazing that everything bad can be directly traced back to a Democrat decision or policy.
Just wondering how that’s possible other than everyone of those legislatures are filled with nothing but pussies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.