Texas Supreme Court Case

[Hidden In Him]

This is the one that will likely be make or break for the Trump legal team. It doesn't matter if the previous 50 cases have been rejected in lower courts, nor does it matter if the Pennsylvania case was rejected by the Supreme Court a few days ago. That would have only netted Trump 20 electoral votes anyway, which would not have been enough to turn the election.

This is the one that gives Trump a real fighting chance should they decide to hear the case, because multiple States are involved. They should decide on whether or not to hear it today or tomorrow, so everything appears to be riding on this decision. On the upside for Trump, 17 States have joined the case and Ted Cruz would be arguing it if they agree to a hearing. On the downside, experts say it is a long shot that the Court will. But miracles happen, and as they say, "It's not over till it's over."

From the Right:
Trump touts Texas Supreme Court case as 'the big one,' says 'we will be intervening'

From the Left:
Can Trump still win the election? Texas Supreme Court lawsuit chances

 

[Heart2Soul]

This is the one that will likely be make or break for the Trump legal team. It doesn't matter if the previous 50 cases have been rejected in lower courts, nor does it matter if the Pennsylvania case was rejected by the Supreme Court a few days ago. That would have only netted Trump 20 electoral votes anyway, which would not have been enough to turn the election.

This is the one that gives Trump a real fighting chance should they decide to hear the case, because multiple States are involved. They should decide on whether or not to hear it today or tomorrow, so everything appears to be riding on this decision. On the upside for Trump, 17 States have joined the case and Ted Cruz would be arguing it if they agree to a hearing. On the downside, experts say it is a long shot that the Court will. But miracles happen, and as they say, "It's not over till it's over."

From the Right:
Trump touts Texas Supreme Court case as 'the big one,' says 'we will be intervening'

From the Left:
Can Trump still win the election? Texas Supreme Court lawsuit chances

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the complaints already, haven't they? They order the defendants to reply by 3pm today.

 

[Hidden In Him]

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the complaints already, haven't they? They order the defendants to reply by 3pm today.

Not yet. False report.

PolitiFact - No, the Supreme Court hasn’t taken up the Texas election case yet

 

[Heart2Soul]

Not yet. False report.

PolitiFact - No, the Supreme Court hasn’t taken up the Texas election case yet

Hmmm...well it's on the docket...wonder what that means.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAEegQIGBAB&usg=AOvVaw00VsftwGmmJnF_RoXUrJeg

 

[JohnDB]

They had until yesterday or was it Tuesday to present evidence...it doesn't mean that they'll hear the case...just that all relatable material was to be delivered. Hard deadline.

Amicus briefs or "friend of the court" briefs have been filled by 17 other states aligning themselves with texas...they really haven't joined in.

If they grant a hearing...there will be no video. Only audio.

But again the rhetoric is so high it's difficult to figure out exactly what is being charged.

But apparently laws were created in an improper fashion concerning this election cycle. (By many states)

Legislatures create laws. Election laws are not subject to any one person's whim.

Every state has its own constitution that spells out how laws are made. A nationwide political party can't make those laws unless gone through the legislatures of various states.

And that apparently is their beef.

And it's not a bad case. Because if laws are made by one individual...it's a bad precedent.

 

[Hidden In Him]

And it's not a bad case. Because if laws are made by one individual...it's a bad precedent.

Yes. I think they have a case, and by the sound of it they believe they do as well. The question is will it be heard.

If you should hear anything, post it. I will be keeping my ears open.

 

[Heart2Soul]

They had until yesterday or was it Tuesday to present evidence...it doesn't mean that they'll hear the case...just that all relatable material was to be delivered. Hard deadline.

Amicus briefs or "friend of the court" briefs have been filled by 17 other states aligning themselves with texas...they really haven't joined in.

If they grant a hearing...there will be no video. Only audio.

But again the rhetoric is so high it's difficult to figure out exactly what is being charged.

But apparently laws were created in an improper fashion concerning this election cycle. (By many states)

Legislatures create laws. Election laws are not subject to any one person's whim.

Every state has its own constitution that spells out how laws are made. A nationwide political party can't make those laws unless gone through the legislatures of various states.

And that apparently is their beef.

And it's not a bad case. Because if laws are made by one individual...it's a bad precedent.

Yes and the changes they made were in violation of the Constitution's Election Laws...especially concerning allowing a continual count of mail-in ballots past the deadline.

 

[JohnDB]

Yes and the changes they made were in violation of the Constitution's Election Laws...especially concerning allowing a continual count of mail-in ballots past the deadline.

Well that remains to be seen.

And the remedy is a whole another story.

You can't disenfranchise people's voting rights... but at the same time ballot box stuffing does the same thing.

So... how does the SCOTUS fix it ?

There must be a solution to the problem. You can't overturn an election?
That would really get some people upset.

We have two sides (politically speaking) of this nation. Both need to be accommodated and have a voice.

It's like the Electoral College...Democrats hate it but Republicans love it. (Used to be the reverse)

Doesn't mean that someone can change that system upon a whim of circumstances.

 

[JohnDB]

Both sides of this case is rather intriguing...

Can the outcome of a federal Election be determined by a handful of people?

A handful of state officials?
A handful of supreme court justices?

 

[JohnDB]

This is true, but I'm looking at what appears to be group of criminals who are fraudulently manipulating the political process for their own ends.

I don't see this current struggle as democrats against republicans. I see this as the would be ruler-elite globalists attempting to get control of the US by using the democratic party machinery, combined with their own shenanigans.

The democrats by and large will lose just the same as the republicans, as the globalist increase their control.

Much love!

Well,
We have election officials tasked with collecting votes and a legislative branch in gridlock...so the official made a new law and waited to see if the legislature would overturn what they chose. (Happens a lot)
So the new laws favored one party (deliberately) over another. And some fraudulent votes were cast as well.

But well intentioned people voted as well based upon what they heard...
Now voters have the responsibility to vote in a lawful fashion...they shouldn't need a lawyer to determine how exactly to vote.

Granted the sitting president also placed the Postmaster General into his position and he did what he could to slow mail in voting down.

So it's a two edged sword here with both parties engaged in dirty politics .

 

[Heart2Soul]

Well that remains to be seen.

And the remedy is a whole another story.

You can't disenfranchise people's voting rights... but at the same time ballot box stuffing does the same thing.

So... how does the SCOTUS fix it ?

There must be a solution to the problem. You can't overturn an election?
That would really get some people upset.

We have two sides (politically speaking) of this nation. Both need to be accommodated and have a voice.

It's like the Electoral College...Democrats hate it but Republicans love it. (Used to be the reverse)

Doesn't mean that someone can change that system upon a whim of circumstances.

You can't overturn a VALID election...but one that has evidence of mishandling and fraudulent activity should and must be challenged or it would never stop happening.

 

[April_Rose]

You can't overturn a VALID election...but one that has evidence of mishandling and fraudulent activity should and must be challenged or it would never stop happening.

Yet some people are still blind and think that the media is telling them the truth. (Which it could never do, but please checkout my election 2020 thread.)

 

[JohnDB]

So far no word from the supreme Court...

The Senate is expected to hold hearings after the Electoral College meets to investigate the claims of fraud even if SCOTUS refuses to take the case.

Nothing can come from the Congressional hearings except to embarrass a few people.

 

[Hidden In Him]

So far no word from the supreme Court...

The Senate is expected to hold hearings after the Electoral College meets to investigate the claims of fraud even if SCOTUS refuses to take the case.

Nothing can come from the Congressional hearings except to embarrass a few people.

Some may still argue, but I think it's over now personally.
Supreme Court rejects Texas-led effort to overturn Biden’s victory

Time to begin praying for two things:

1. That all the political corruption is exposed nonetheless, and
2. That Kamala Harris repents, turns to the Lord Jesus Christ, and works to mend the country, if nothing else at least racially.