Election 2020 Election 2020: It's (almost) over! (maybe...possibly...ahh who are we kidding, it's 2020!)

Duke Nukem

Hail to the king baby
Texas Has replied to the Defendant state responses from yesterday.



INTRODUCTION
Defendant States do not seriously address grave issues that Texas raises, choosing to hide behind other court venues and decisions in which Texas could not participate and to mischaracterize both the relief that Texas seeks and the justification for that relief. An injunction should issue because Defendant States have not—and cannot—defend their actions.
First, as a legal matter, neither Texas nor its citizens have an action in any other court for the relief that Texas seeks here. Moreover, no other court could provide relief as a practical matter. The suggestion that Texas—or anyone else—has an adequate remedy is specious.
Second, Texas does not ask this Court to reelect President Trump, and Texas does not seek to disenfranchise the majority of Defendant States’ voters. To both points, Texas asks this Court to recognize the obvious fact that Defendant States’ maladministration of the 2020 election makes it impossible to know which candidate garnered the majority of lawful votes. The Court’s role is to strike unconstitutional action and remand to the actors that the Constitution and Congress vest with authority for the next step. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2; 3 U.S.C. § 2. Inaction would disenfranchise as many voters as taking action allegedly would. Moreover, acting decisively will not only put lower courts but also state and local officials on notice that future elections must conform to State election statutes, requiring legislative ratification of any change prior to the election. Far from condemning this and other courts to perpetual litigation, action here will stanch the flood of election-season litigation.
Third, Defendant States’ invocation of laches and standing evinces a cavalier unseriousness about the most cherished right in a democracy—the right to vote. Asserting that Texas does not raise serious issues is telling. Suggesting that Texas should have acted sooner misses the mark—the campaign to eviscerate state statutory ballot integrity provisions took months to plan and carry out yet Texas has had only weeks to detect wrongdoing, look for witnesses willing to speak, and marshal admissible evidence. Advantage to those who, for whateverreason, sought to destroy ballot integrity protections in the selection of our President.
On top of these threshold issues, Defendant States do precious little to defend the merits of their actions. This Court should issue the requested injunction.
 

Duke Nukem

Hail to the king baby
So in translation 'lol, you guys are so full of bullshit'.

Texas is savage.

• Not acting incentivizes further lawlessness and will drive honest voters from the polls: why should anyone vote if a few urban centers will manufacture an unlawful and insuperable vote margin? • Acting now, once, removes any incentive for future lawlessness. Injunctions and/or acts of executive fiat that undermine the lawful election process will cease if the Court acts now. Chastened by this Court’s mandate, future non-legislative actors will know they must seek legislative ratification before an election for any changes to election procedures that they believe to be necessary or compelling. The public interest demands ending the abusive conduct that produced this dilemma.
 

Duke Nukem

Hail to the king baby

"Michigan also argues that the remedy would disenfranchise millions of voters, id., but Michigan officials disenfranchised those Michigan voters. Specifically, Michigan admits it cannot segregate the illegal ballots from the legal ones, id. 9, which admits the impossibility of a lawful recount on remand to the Michigan executive ... Remand to the legislature is the only viable option. Whether the legislature sets a new election or provides some other mechanism to allocate Michigan’s electoral votes is up to the legislature."
 

Greengrass

Well-known member
Posting this here as well since both threads have been talking about it,
As I expected, the Supreme Court denied the Texas case due to lack of standing.

image.png


Thomas and Alito, as usual, would have granted leave to file because they basically always say that they think the Supreme Court has to take any cases that claim to be state-to-state, but don't say anything about the merits or mootness (though the "would not grant other relief" suggests they also agree the claimed "facts" of the case are nonsense)
 

Vaermina

Well-known member
Posting this here as well since both threads have been talking about it,
As I expected, the Supreme Court denied the Texas case due to lack of standing.

image.png


Thomas and Alito, as usual, would have granted leave to file because they basically always say that they think the Supreme Court has to take any cases that claim to be state-to-state, but don't say anything about the merits or mootness (though the "would not grant other relief" suggests they also agree the claimed "facts" of the case are nonsense)
Interesting, I wonder if Texas will refile without the demand for relief.
 

Duke Nukem

Hail to the king baby
Posting this here as well since both threads have been talking about it,
As I expected, the Supreme Court denied the Texas case due to lack of standing.

image.png


Thomas and Alito, as usual, would have granted leave to file because they basically always say that they think the Supreme Court has to take any cases that claim to be state-to-state, but don't say anything about the merits or mootness (though the "would not grant other relief" suggests they also agree the claimed "facts" of the case are nonsense)

Welp they pretty much just proved that the Constitution is just toilet paper.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top