TexasCHLforum.com

gtolbert09 wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 9:26 pm Apparently Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and South Dakota have joined Texas in the lawsuit.

And when this suit goes nowhere, when SCOTUS is shown to be corrupted and in the pockets of the communists, what do the aggrieved states do next?

And the title of this thread should be “Texas to the rescue of our Republic”

Grayling813 wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 10:14 pm And when this suit goes nowhere, when SCOTUS is shown to be corrupted and in the pockets of the communists, what do the aggrieved states do next?

Secede?!

Grayling813 wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 10:14 pm And when this suit goes nowhere, when SCOTUS is shown to be corrupted and in the pockets of the communists, what do the aggrieved states do next?

I would be quite surprised if that happened. Trump himself nominated Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, & Barrett. They haven't been there long enough to lose their shine. Alito & Thomas are solid conservatives. They all know that if the Dimocraps take over their #1 play will be to pack the court and thus destroy our Republic.

Being only human, Thomas probably dreams sweet dreams of backhanding Joe Biden.

Grayling813 wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 10:14 pmAnd when this suit goes nowhere, when SCOTUS is shown to be corrupted and in the pockets of the communists, what do the aggrieved states do next?

I don't think the SCOTUS is corrupted right now. As Pawpaw pointed out, there are at least three relatively new justices appointed by Trump who are pretty confirmed conservatives and I believe them to be honest. I think Alito and Thomas would also be honest and fair in this case. I am not so sure about the rest.

The good news is that the case is, as I understand it, actually resting on some pretty fair legal grounds and SCOTUS precedent. If the case gets to a decision on its merits, I think it will be decided against the 4 defendant states. Bush v. Gore established pretty firmly that you cannot change the rules for counting the ballots after the election started. It also established that all counties in a state must interpret the law in the same way. The other parts of the case, that it takes a legislature to change the election rules for a presidential election, not a governor or elections administrator or even a court decision, seem like a clear cut case also.

But I am seriously in doubt that it will get that far. I believe there is a good chance that the question of standing will be the grounds for the decision and it won't be the way I hope. The claim laid out about debasing our votes just seems weak to me.

But along with this, I have been gaming out possible results. Even if Texas wins the case, will it make a difference in the election? The rule is that the president must get more than half the electoral votes to win. Currently, that is 270 out of 538 possible. The only way I see that Trump can be re-elected is if the courts rule in his favor on all four states and give him the electoral votes. The court could do this, but I doubt it would because the ruling itself would violate the Constitution where it says the state legislature gets to choose its electors. So, I am guessing the most likely result is to invalidate the current election certification and tell the legislatures to choose their electors again. They might do it by recounting the legal votes (if there is time) or the legislatures will probably decide to pick the electors themselves. If they decide to pick them, some of the states might pick the same electors because they are local politicians trying to get re-elected. Can you see their next campaign if they did not pick the ones the majority of the media will claim are the expressed will of the voting public?

Now there is the possibility that some states may not get to name new electors due to the time constraints. If all of them did not get to vote it lowers the threshold to 239 (538-62 = 476, half is 238, so a majority is 239). Trump only has 232 so he would still lose.

So, to win, Trump has to pick up enough of the electors plus have some states not send in votes. If all of the states don't send in he loses. If the same electors get sent in by the legislatures, he loses. If all of the states send in electors, Trump MIGHT be able to win while losing the electors from one state depending on the state.

I hate this analysis, but this is a case where I would rather be pessimistic so I can be pleasantly surprised than get my hopes up and be extremely disappointed.

And the title of this thread should be “Texas to the rescue of our Republic”

I fully agree with this.

Our Republic only exists because of the RKBA. And that's why RKBA is directly in the enemies crosshairs.

+ Missouri for support.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/missou ... reme-court

Takes 270 to win, not half of the electoral total certified. Take away enough the put Biden below 270 and the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state votes as a unit. Slight Republican advantage.

E10 wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:34 am Takes 270 to win, not half of the electoral total certified. Take away enough the put Biden below 270 and the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state votes as a unit. Slight Republican advantage.

I guess that will be the next SCOTUS case, how to interpret this clause of the Constitution:

The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed;

The way I read that is that if a state does not appoint electors, then it no longer takes 270, just a majority of how many get appointed. I can agree it takes 270 of the electors appointed, if all states appoint the electors. The questions becomes what happens if a state, say Pennsylvania, gets the appointment thrown out by the court and the legislature does not make another appointment of electors.

srothstein wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:02 am

E10 wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:34 am Takes 270 to win, not half of the electoral total certified. Take away enough the put Biden below 270 and the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state votes as a unit. Slight Republican advantage.

I guess that will be the next SCOTUS case, how to interpret this clause of the Constitution:

The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed;

The way I read that is that if a state does not appoint electors, then it no longer takes 270, just a majority of how many get appointed. I can agree it takes 270 of the electors appointed, if all states appoint the electors. The questions becomes what happens if a state, say Pennsylvania, gets the appointment thrown out by the court and the legislature does not make another appointment of electors.

Apparent if things get really discombobulated the US House selects the President.


This initial post on page 1 really lifted my spirits, as with Rudy being sick and Linn and Sidney getting shot down by the courts and with safe harbor passing, I was afraid it was going to end in a big nothing burger. This doesnot rely solely on fraud but constitutional law, to me it is a winner if SCOTUS takes it. I really hope Roberts doesn’t vote with the other side.

I really hope and pray that I’m wrong, but I don’t see SCOTUS taking this or any cases apparently related to the fraud and abuse of the election system because they threw out the PA case. Even more troubling, not ONE justice has written a dissent. Not one of them, even the ones we think of staunch conservatives. Very troubling. They don’t want to get near any of it.

If you put your hope in anything wearing a suit or robe your set for a disappointment. I gave up on people along time ago.

parabelum wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:31 pm I really hope and pray that I’m wrong, but I don’t see SCOTUS taking this or any cases apparently related to the fraud and abuse of the election system because they threw out the PA case. Even more troubling, not ONE justice has written a dissent. Not one of them, even the ones we think of staunch conservatives. Very troubling. They don’t want to get near any of it.

M

y understanding is that they did not throw out the whole case. Only the "injunctive relief" part of the case. The rest of the case still stands for now.

We will see where this goes...

“ Missouri, 16 other states file brief supporting Texas suit to delay presidential elector appointment”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/missou ... ppointment

parabelum wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:31 pm I really hope and pray that I’m wrong, but I don’t see SCOTUS taking this or any cases apparently related to the fraud and abuse of the election system because they threw out the PA case. Even more troubling, not ONE justice has written a dissent. Not one of them, even the ones we think of staunch conservatives. Very troubling. They don’t want to get near any of it.

Hannidy and o’Riley, both seem to think SCOTUS will pass.
O’Riley wants a special prosecutor appointed by Barr to investigate the election.