SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : US ELECTION :Texas Files Law Suit against 4 Battleground States with SCOTUS

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
staff
Member



Joined: 2007/2/8
Posts: 1757


 Re:

Hi Dolfan,
This has to be seen as huge positive if you are praying for a Trump/Justice be done win.Out of the blue a State who have standing makes a suit.I wonder when is the last time this has happened,my guess is it hasnt happened very often where a state makes a Presidential election lawsuit.

John Eastman gives a good explanation here of the Texas Case and why it has a chance of winning,staff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXaHf4iTSIE


 2020/12/8 20:26Profile
dolfan
Member



Joined: 2011/8/23
Posts: 1672
Tennessee, but my home's in Alabama

 Re:

Pray, rejoice, celebrate, all that. I'm not discouraging optimism. As I said, I haven't read the Texas filing and probably won't.

To your question about when this happened last...I don't think THIS ever has.

Oh, and I was confused earlier on Cruz in this case. He isn't involved (it was the PA case he had agreed to argue if cert had been granted).

Texas's standing is an issue that the defense for these sued states will raise (I don't know if Georgia will fight this or not).

I will say.....I'm concerned that this hurts the GOP Senate candidates in Georgia. Keeping the Senate is paramount at this point.


_________________
Tim

 2020/12/8 20:34Profile
staff
Member



Joined: 2007/2/8
Posts: 1757


 Re:

Hi
I think myself that with God on the case Trump will win.
It doesnt make an sense that he doesnt win.If God was allowing him to lose now why bother let him win in 2016 we might as well have had Hillary and get it over and done with .
As far as SCOTUS is concerned they are in a bind I think and whether they want to be in that bind we do not know yet.
If they refuse to process the case on arbitrary technicalities then they will have lost the confidence all conservatives and if they process the case they will find that the 4 states did bypass the constitution and will have to take action.
If the Christians,conservatives and constitutionalists dont stand up now in a "time like this" they dont deserve to hold the senate (its just crumbs) a similar position to Esther she would have remained Queen(crumbs) but betrayed her people.Let Mordecai hang high,let the Red Sea stay flowing and not part and let not the fire fall on Mt Carmel if they are are afraid to be counted,urs staff

ps On a Spiritual front if the Surpreme court does not act now let them be accursed,thrown out as salt that has lost its saltiness or the tree that wont bare fruit no matter what care it gets.
On a purely human front it must count that these Judges know what the opposition is like.
Clarence Thomas dragged through the mud by Joe Biden
Brett Kavanaugh dragged through the mud by Kamala Harris and the Congress.









 2020/12/8 21:23Profile
staff
Member



Joined: 2007/2/8
Posts: 1757


 Re:

Hi
Just an update where we are at

The four swing states have been ordered to respond to the Texas Lawsuit by 3pm tomoro.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhVRkTWAGkA

urs staff

 2020/12/9 12:20Profile
TrueWitness
Member



Joined: 2006/8/10
Posts: 539


 Re:

Quote:
The four swing states have been ordered to respond to the Texas Lawsuit by 3pm tomoro.



OK, so that deadline was for Thursday Dec. 10, 2020 by 3 p.m.

Here it is Friday Dec. 11 and I am frantically looking for news articles to find what the response is and I can't find anything. The deadline was imposed by the Supreme Court and so if no response is given by the deadline, what happens then?

Has anyone heard anything about the four states response to the lawsuit yet?

 2020/12/11 10:29Profile
staff
Member



Joined: 2007/2/8
Posts: 1757


 Re:

Hi
I just saw that they have responded but I dont think the details of what they said is out in the open yet,If i see anything I will put it up on this thread,
As far as I know its 23 states on the Texas side and the Democrats have 20 states joining in,urs staff

p.s. also i heard that the dominion voting machines have been processed and a judge in Michigan is trying very hard not to let the results out obviously because they have something to hide.

 2020/12/11 11:29Profile
dolfan
Member



Joined: 2011/8/23
Posts: 1672
Tennessee, but my home's in Alabama

 Re:

There were MANY responses and briefs filed by the Respondents yesterday.

I don't know that anything will be decided today.

Bear in mind, these are their options at the moment:

1. Read the briefs from all sides and rule FOR or AGAINST the TRO without actual live argument. This is the outcome I second most expect.

2. Read the briefs and set an emergency hearing for this weekend only for the TRO.

3. Read the briefs and consolidate the TRO and Preliminary Injunction stages in an emergency hearing this weekend.

4. Read the briefs and dismiss the whole thing for a variety of potential reasons. This is the outcome I most expect, but could be wrong.

The next step would be, IF a TRO is granted this weekend,
the Electoral College would almost certainly conduct its business on Monday as scheduled and the Court would likely allow Biden electors to cast provisional votes until it decides the merits of the case (meaning, at that stage, they'd have a very quick "trial" on the Preliminary Injunction step).

I'll stop there because I don't think further processes will actually happen.

But, I will say this: The pro-Trump states who are asking the Court for relief here are putting the Court in an impossible spot Constitutionally. We must remember that the Court cannot tell other branches of government that they can or cannot operate. The Electoral College is a quasi-legislative body. For the Court to order that it cannot do what the Constitution mandates that it does is practically the same thing as the Court telling Congress it cannot meet to pass laws or telling the Executive Branch that all agencies must not operate. They don't have that power.

So, with that in mind, I cannot imagine a situation where the EC doesn't do what it does as required by law. If they do meet and don't have the electors from these 4 swing states, it creates a whole new problem that maybe neither candidate has 270 votes. I am dubious that the Court will create that situation. If it did, for everyone in Georgia -- you better show up and vote Republican in the Senate race because the court packing threats will become reality if you don't.




_________________
Tim

 2020/12/11 11:32Profile
staff
Member



Joined: 2007/2/8
Posts: 1757


 Re:

Hi Dolfan,
What are the variety of reasons that this would be dismissed?

These are arguments I heard put forward.

At least two of the judges are on record as saying that in such a case the SCOTUS has to hear the case as their is no higher place to go and no lower place to go.


An argument of "A republican gaurantee clause" in the constitution is being brought up by Idaho,Alaska and Arizona in an Amicus Brief. Article 4 section 1.
Which gaurantees a republican form of government.This clause was written so that the likes of Texas would have a gaurantee before joining the union that it will be a republic all the time or they can leave.In 1947 the supreme court decided what a republican form of government is.Seemingly they said nobody can be elected unless they get the majority of the "legal votes cast" .That I guess means any votes cast where the law was not legal are not legal votes.A law that is not legal would be laws introduced by the AG rather than the legislature.

The Texas case has clarified that they were not asking Scotus to judge the outcome of the election but that the legislature of each state will be left to decide about the fate of electors which is allowed fully by the constitution.
They are being careful in saying to SCOTUS you are not deciding the outcome of the election but you are just deciding what the constitution states is the law.

SCOTUS can tell the individual state legislatures how they can or cannot operate as they can tell them that they have to operate within the law set forth by the legislature of that state.As Judge Alito pointed out when he warned PA to seperate ballots cast after 8pm on election date when he contradicted the law put forward by the judicary of PA which said it was ok to do so.

The bind SCOTUS is in is that if they dont Judge the case then their will be a strong case going forward that AG'S or the Judicary of States can change law without the Legislature involvement.
urs staff














 2020/12/11 13:31Profile
staff
Member



Joined: 2007/2/8
Posts: 1757


 Re:

Hi

This is a good explanation of it all ,I think which talks about the SCOTUS options but they say it will move very quickly
ACLJ Video below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX_HdSPtc3s

staff

 2020/12/11 13:48Profile
dolfan
Member



Joined: 2011/8/23
Posts: 1672
Tennessee, but my home's in Alabama

 Re:

Hi, Staff --

"What are the variety of reasons that this would be dismissed?

Procedural and substantive reasons exist. It has been the way of the SCOTUS since, basically forever, to dispose of a matter through procedural issues so that it can avoid reaching substantive issues that don't have to be addressed. When I say "dispose" I only mean "deal with" not "trash". So, I'm using legal jargon to discuss a legal process.

Procedurally, the Court could say, basically, "We've read the briefs and although some of us acknowledge serious questions about the way some or all of these states enforced their laws, we can't reach those issues without evidence presented in a trial. Unfortunately, the Constitution also requires the Electoral College to convene and cast its votes on Monday, December 14, 2020 and we lack the power to stop the EC from performing its duties. We could agree with every Petition and still be without the power to grant a remedy. The problems posed by the petitioners about the manner in which states chose electors is, at this point in time, a political question and not a substantively legal one. It is for voters to decide in the normal political process to elect their state legislators and executive officials if they want to see these rules changed in the future, but we can not try to catch the last grain of sand as it falls from the top of the hourglass in order to create a remedy that we lack the power to grant."

Or, something to that effect.

Or, another procedural reason may simply be that the Petitioners fail to meet their burden of proof. The request here is for what is called "extraordinary relief". That's a legal term. And, when you do that, you have to provide thorough "proffers" (descriptions of exactly what you proof will be if you were able to show it in court with witnesses) enough expected evidence to convince the court that you would have a clear right to the relief you request, that you would be irreparably harmed without it, and that at an actual trial you would most likely win.

It is a very difficult reach in this case. And, I know because I've won an election related case in federal court through this method myself (with one deadline already past and another fast approaching deadline being the problem).

So, there are two procedural reasons why the SCOTUS could shut this down today. And, watching Jay Sekulow -- one of the President's own attorneys -- this morning, he clearly expects that to happen. He's urging Trump supporters to act right.

Substantive reasons? In my view, the republicanism guarantee clause does not give sovereign states the right to reach into one another's executive processes to influence how the several states execute their own state laws. It opens up a pandora's box that few seem to care about. And, I don't know of any case law that supports that theory. Yet, that's what the petition asks. Article IV, Sec. 4 guarantees have not been applied to guarantee to one state that another state will do/not do specific things relative to elections. Historically, an aggrieved party relying on that clause comes from within a state and is suing his/her/its own state for violating the republicanism guarantee. Granting the petition in this case would be a huge change in law. There's no precedent for granting what they're asking.


"At least two of the judges are on record as saying that in such a case the SCOTUS has to hear the case as their is no higher place to go and no lower place to go."

I explained this earlier this week: they have to "hear" this case because they have exclusive original jurisdiction. There's no other court empowered by law to hear a case where one or more states sues another state. This is NOT an appeal. This is not "cert". This is not an appeal by right. This is a brand new case filed first with the SCOTUS because the Constitution and law require it. "Hearing" it says nothing about how strong or weak the case is. It is the identity of the parties (states suing one another as states) and not the kind of questions raised that put this in the laps of the 9 justices.


"An argument of 'A republican gaurantee clause' in the constitution is being brought up by Idaho,Alaska and Arizona in an Amicus Brief. Article 4 section 1.
Which gaurantees a republican form of government.This clause was written so that the likes of Texas would have a gaurantee before joining the union that it will be a republic all the time or they can leave.In 1947 the supreme court decided what a republican form of government is.Seemingly they said nobody can be elected unless they get the majority of the 'legal votes cast' .That I guess means any votes cast where the law was not legal are not legal votes.A law that is not legal would be laws introduced by the AG rather than the legislature."

Don't guess what cases mean. Paid professionals don't do that well at it, so just do yourself a favor. But, I will say this: historically, the SCOTUS said that it has no power to really interpret the "republican guarantee" clause; then, once it started actually doing that 100 years later the Court has consistently said that it will not bring that clause to bear on the internal processes a state may use in an election. There may be OTHER clauses in the Constitution that allow them to do that in specific ways (and there have been, such as the preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act), but that clause does not give them a vehicle to do what the Petitioner are asking.

"The Texas case has clarified that they were not asking Scotus to judge the outcome of the election but that the legislature of each state will be left to decide about the fate of electors which is allowed fully by the constitution.
They are being careful in saying to SCOTUS you are not deciding the outcome of the election but you are just deciding what the constitution states is the law."

Yeah, there's just way more wrapped up in that than I can even poke at here. They are asking them to help set aside some "outcomes". And, they are doing that by asking them to use the "republican guarantee" clause as a way to do it. And, that's something they haven't ever done. If they do, I'll be floored. And, the streets will be filled. I just don't see it happening, Staff.


"SCOTUS can tell the individual state legislatures how they can or cannot operate as they can tell them that they have to operate within the law set forth by the legislature of that state."

LOL, no, they can't. In fact, they can't stop a state legislature from passing any law it wants to. They can stop the enforcement of it, but they absolutely cannot overstep their own powers to tell a state legislature it cannot pass unconstitutional laws. For that reason, they can't tell the EC not to vote on Monday.

"As Judge Alito pointed out when he warned PA to seperate ballots cast after 8pm on election date when he contradicted the law put forward by the judicary of PA which said it was ok to do so."

Yeah, that has nothing to do with the legislature.


"The bind SCOTUS is in is that if they dont Judge the case then their will be a strong case going forward that AG'S or the Judicary of States can change law without the Legislature involvement."


No, that's not even new. That's not the implication if Trump or these states fail. The implication is if you really want the law changed, you're going to have to elect different people and stop paying attention to media, interest groups, ads and the internet and gather enough people to vote for people they've vetted hard enough on what matters to them. One state at a time. You put a term limit on all of 'em by organizing and building enough momentum to vote everyone out and put a new group of corrupt sinners in. If you figure that out, you'll be the wealthiest man in America -- or the most dangerous.
We don't really like people to change anything the powers that be don't want changed.

I love ya, Staff, but this is .... what it is.


_________________
Tim

 2020/12/11 14:26Profile





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy