Election 2020 Election Fraud: Let's face it, this year will be a shitshow

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
They have no standing, the drafting is sloppy containing many basic factual mistakes, the statistical analysis assumes no shifts between 2016 and 2020 which is obviously not True, other affidavits have already been thrown out of court, the equal protection claim is absurd, it's a terrible case that's an attempt by paxton to get a federal pardon.
Except it has standing. all four states did not have thier legislature make the new laws. Which is what the lawsuit is...
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Except it has standing. all four states did not have thier legislature make the new laws. Which is what the lawsuit is...

Under the established precedents, the federal government might have a viable case for standing (even that is not guaranteed); other state governments do not, regardless of whether it was legislative action or executive action within the defendant state. States do not answer to each other under pretty much any circumstances other than equal faith and credit.
 

random_boy232

Well-known member
Banned - Politics
Why is anyone bothering to argue with random boy? There's no point in arguing with leftists even when they're debating in good faith. A braindead troll like random isn't even worth the effort of reading his posts.
I'll enjoy visiting this place on January 21th.
Except it has standing. all four states did not have thier legislature make the new laws. Which is what the lawsuit is...
That's not what standing is, you must suffer an individualized damage as a response to the action to sue. Somebody doing something wrong doesnt' create standing unless you can prove it particularly impacts you. This fails the second prudential limitation given that literally everyone is impacted the same way.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Why is anyone bothering to argue with random boy? There's no point in arguing with leftists even when they're debating in good faith. A braindead troll like random isn't even worth the effort of reading his posts.
Why debate at all if you're not going to engage people who disagree with you?
 

TyrantTriumphant

Well-known member
Why debate at all if you're not going to engage people who disagree with you?
I never said that you shouldn't refuse to engage with everyone who disagrees with you. It is still useful to debate with different spectrums of the right as well as some independents and even a few of the more moderate people on the left.

I know that contradicts my previous post but looking back I think I was a little broad in my statement.

But there still isn't any point arguing with Communists. A few of them might change there ways when they find out how their ideology works in real life, but most of them will stick to their totalitarian ideals to the end. Talking with them is just a waste of time.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
You have absolutely no idea how the law works, don't you ?
Yes.
The problem with applying standing to questions of constitutionality is that standing is entirely based on they person raising the case not being the appropriate one to receive the resolution. However with questions of constitutional repeal, that is entirely irrelevant. Applying standing to questions of constitutionality only servers to lame the constitution.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Under the established precedents, the federal government might have a viable case for standing (even that is not guaranteed); other state governments do not, regardless of whether it was legislative action or executive action within the defendant state. States do not answer to each other under pretty much any circumstances other than equal faith and credit.
They can bring up that other states are breaking the constitution, and all their cases go directly to SCOTUS because it is a state on state issue
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
They can bring up that other states are breaking the constitution, and all their cases go directly to SCOTUS because it is a state on state issue

Yes and no. The Supreme Court is the court of original jurisdiction in disputes between state governments themselves, but this does not mean that SCOTUS will automatically accept and rule on every case so submitted. The Court has the authority to decline jurisdiction and thereby quash any such case with no possibility of any appeal, and has exercised this authority many times in the past.

In addition, once acting as the court of original jurisdiction, SCOTUS will handle the case in full, performing all the same functions as a trial level court normally would; therefore, standing would have to be established and all other legalities satisfied. There is no automatic pass "because plaintiff is a State".
 

Sir 1000

Shitlord
Why debate at all if you're not going to engage people who disagree with you?
Is this a debate forum? Or is it a discussion forum? I think that might be one of the problems with our sister sites tbh. This site seems more like a discussion forum to me. For example ''i like tacos'' would have people asking for a source on sb or asking if that's in your case files on sv. While here you can show a picture of your dinner last night or tell someone to piss off.

This might seem annoying to some people but the person who shows the dinner picture is going to be respected more than the person who says piss off. Because of the sites freedom of speech policies a lot of people who would otherwise be banned for bad faith or trolling or whatever are still here. If we had stricter debate rules than we risk having to honestly answer ''did you ever stop beating your wife?'' style questions.

I think you can't really have a debate forum and have freedom of speech. Any debate forum is going to have numerous rules that can be applied subjectively. Either against a troll or against a ''troll'' who has beliefs that the mod disagrees with. Being more relaxed can be annoying at times but you can quickly learn who's full of shit and either ignore or call them an ass and move on. So it's more than possible to have a stringent debate and have fun bants. That's another of the benefits here, it's fun.
 

Rocinante

Russian Bot
Founder
If you assume that state's rights are inherently a race issue, yes. That is certainly an interesting argument for a conservative to make.
No, your post, and your point, was literally about race.

You brought race into this one. You just accused the right of only caring About state rights if it's the right to abuse brown people. Or if you want to pick hairs, you insinuated as much without directly claiming. Either way, it was you who played the race card, don't act surprised when people respond to it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top