Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states

Post by Bryce » Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:19 pm

Honeyman wrote:
Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:06 pm

There was no massive fraud, Bryce.

Only because we have a narcissistic, self-absorbed, possibly insane man in the White House, is this even happening.

What this will do to our country in the long-term, I honestly believe will be devastating.
We will agree to disagree. I won't go into all my reasons why because it would fall on deaf ears. But to put it briefly, the changing of rules and proceedures combined with the media, along with big tech, hit job on not only on the sitting President, but the actions taken to protect the Democrat candidate, in any reasonable persons mind amounts to not only fraud but collusion.

The evidence of collusion between the DNC and big tech along with the media is right there in front of everyone's eyes. No fake dossier's, no anonymous sources, no innuendo. The last minute changing of the rules to allow people that otherwise wouldn't vote (or didn't but made it possible for someone else to do so and turn their ballot in) is plain to see.

There's just too much THERE, there to not investigate further. Much more THERE than the Democrats had with their "Russian Collusion" farce. That in and of itself is enough evidence that the Democrats and the DNC would stop at NOTING including fixing an election to remove Donald John from office. They did it at least once with JFK, why would you say they wouldn't do it now?


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Lester The Nightfly
Posts: 1735
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:19 pm

Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states

Post by Lester The Nightfly » Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:31 pm

Bryce wrote:
Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:19 pm
Honeyman wrote:
Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:06 pm

There was no massive fraud, Bryce.

Only because we have a narcissistic, self-absorbed, possibly insane man in the White House, is this even happening.

What this will do to our country in the long-term, I honestly believe will be devastating.
We will agree to disagree. I won't go into all my reasons why because it would fall on deaf ears. But to put it briefly, the changing of rules and proceedures combined with the media, along with big tech, hit job on not only on the sitting President, but the actions taken to protect the Democrat candidate, in any reasonable persons mind amounts to not only fraud but collusion.

The evidence of collusion between the DNC and big tech along with the media is right there in front of everyone's eyes. No fake dossier's, no anonymous sources, no innuendo. The last minute changing of the rules to allow people that otherwise wouldn't vote (or didn't but made it possible for someone else to do so and turn their ballot in) is plain to see.

There's just too much THERE, there to not investigate further. Much more THERE than the Democrats had with their "Russian Collusion" farce. That in and of itself is enough evidence that the Democrats and the DNC would stop at NOTING including fixing an election to remove Donald John from office. They did it at least once with JFK, why would you say they wouldn't do it now?
That's a lot of prestidigitation if we're the incompetent fuckup's your side has claimed we are...



User avatar
MWmetalhead
Site Admin
Posts: 11877
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:23 am

Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states

Post by MWmetalhead » Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:34 pm

Bryce:

So, the 1st amendment rights of the media, big tech, etc. should be infringed?

Republicans seemed to like corporate money in politics when the contributions largely tilted in their favor. Were you expressing concern about that situation 15 or 20 years ago when campaign finance reform was being debated in Congress?

You sound like the whiny Dems who wanted the Fairness Doctrine re-imposed in the mid 90's!
The last minute changing of the rules to allow people that otherwise wouldn't vote (or didn't but made it possible for someone else to do so and turn their ballot in) is plain to see.
You do realize a number of states with GOP leadership increased ballot access, too, right?

You don't think Trump bears any self-responsibility for aversion certain groups of voters have toward him? Maybe if he wasn't such an obnoxious asshole, he would've performed better among swing voters, center-right business groups, older voters, suburban women, etc.



MotorCityRadioFreak
Posts: 6409
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
Location: Warren, MI

Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states

Post by MotorCityRadioFreak » Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:35 pm

Bryce wrote:
Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:19 pm
Honeyman wrote:
Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:06 pm

There was no massive fraud, Bryce.

Only because we have a narcissistic, self-absorbed, possibly insane man in the White House, is this even happening.

What this will do to our country in the long-term, I honestly believe will be devastating.
We will agree to disagree. I won't go into all my reasons why because it would fall on deaf ears. But to put it briefly, the changing of rules and proceedures combined with the media, along with big tech, hit job on not only on the sitting President, but the actions taken to protect the Democrat candidate, in any reasonable persons mind amounts to not only fraud but collusion.

The evidence of collusion between the DNC and big tech along with the media is right there in front of everyone's eyes. No fake dossier's, no anonymous sources, no innuendo. The last minute changing of the rules to allow people that otherwise wouldn't vote (or didn't but made it possible for someone else to do so and turn their ballot in) is plain to see.

There's just too much THERE, there to not investigate further. Much more THERE than the Democrats had with their "Russian Collusion" farce. That in and of itself is enough evidence that the Democrats and the DNC would stop at NOTING including fixing an election to remove Donald John from office. They did it at least once with JFK, why would you say they wouldn't do it now?
There is zero evidence for anything. Farting Rudy had every chance to present evidence. Fake news photographs and surveillance tapes don't count.


They/them, non-binary and proud.

Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.

User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states

Post by Bryce » Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:38 pm

MWmetalhead wrote:
Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:16 pm
But, more importantly, if indeed the States in question did violate Article III...
In what respect(s) do you believe Article III was violated?
Article 1, section 4 of the COTUS bestows the power of how elections are run on the legislature of each state. If, election rules were changed and altered by state officials without legislative action, it would be in violation of the electors clause of the COTUS. Violating the electors clause would indeed create a Constitutional violation which would fall under Article III.

I did use the wrong terminology in my post. The violation wasn't of Article III, but of the electors clause. Article III gives the SCOTUS sole power to remedy, but they declined to do so.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Honeyman
Posts: 5776
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:44 pm

Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states

Post by Honeyman » Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:42 pm

But no wrongdoing was ever proven, Bryce.


The censorship king from out of state.

User avatar
MWmetalhead
Site Admin
Posts: 11877
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:23 am

Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states

Post by MWmetalhead » Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:47 pm

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
("Choosing" is literally spelled "chusing" in the excerpted text.)

https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... _00001036/

The term "Legislature" has been broadly construed in earlier federal court rulings.

I should also mention that the passage you reference makes no direct reference to Presidential elections.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states

Post by Bryce » Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:50 pm

MWmetalhead wrote:
Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:34 pm
Bryce:

So, the 1st amendment rights of the media, big tech, etc. should be infringed?
Absolutely NOT! But, they in turn should not have the right to stifle either. The power to deep six fact based reporting from the nations second oldest newspaper because it cast your preferred candidate in a poor light is way too much power for an entity that touches so many users to have.
MWmetalhead wrote:
Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:34 pm
You don't think Trump bears any self-responsibility for aversion certain groups of voters have toward him? Maybe if he wasn't such an obnoxious asshole, he would've performed better among swing voters, center-right business groups, older voters, suburban women, etc.
On this we can agree. I still think Trump is the Andrew Dice Clay of politics, but like the results that he made happen. It's a New York Borough thing. If he would have had the smarts to let someone "class him up" and take the "Brooklyn Construction Guy" out of him, he would have been much more palatable to many in suburbia.

He did accomplish MANY great things in his time in office. Things that true conservatives fully support and favor. If you can overlook caddishness, and concentrate on the good things that he made happen while in office, things that were largely ignored by the media, it would be hard not to vote for him.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states

Post by Bryce » Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:51 pm

Honeyman wrote:
Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:42 pm
But no wrongdoing was ever proven, Bryce.
Neither was Russian Collusion, but hundreds of people spent 3.5 years and millions of dollars investigating it.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

MotorCityRadioFreak
Posts: 6409
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
Location: Warren, MI

Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states

Post by MotorCityRadioFreak » Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:53 pm

If Trump had not supported white supremacy and even ACTED like he cared about COVID, he would still be in office on January 20th.


They/them, non-binary and proud.

Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.

User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states

Post by Bryce » Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:55 pm

MWmetalhead wrote:
Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:47 pm

The term "Legislature" has been broadly construed in earlier federal court rulings.

I should also mention that the passage you reference makes no direct reference to Presidential elections.
Indeed it has. But, in the link you provide the court found:
he Court disagreed and held that Arizona’s use of an independent commission to establish congressional districts is permissible because the Elections Clause uses the word Legislature to describe the power that makes laws, a term that is broad enough to encompass the power provided by the Arizona constitution for the people to make laws through ballot initiatives.
Take Michigan for example. Our State Constitution does NOT bestow the power to make laws upon the Secretary of State.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
MWmetalhead
Site Admin
Posts: 11877
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:23 am

Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states

Post by MWmetalhead » Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:00 pm

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 states:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Seems to me nothing in the above clause suggests state Legislatures cannot pass / enact laws that regulate the process they must follow in choosing Electors. In Michigan, the Legislature is required by state law to choose Electors on the basis of the result of the popular vote.


The Twelfth Amendment governs the responsibilities of Electors and of Congress in tallying Electoral College results:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President

-The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.



User avatar
MWmetalhead
Site Admin
Posts: 11877
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:23 am

Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states

Post by MWmetalhead » Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:01 pm

On this we can agree. I still think Trump is the Andrew Dice Clay of politics...
Excellent analogy!!! I like it.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states

Post by Bryce » Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:04 pm

Lester The Nightfly wrote:
Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:31 pm

That's a lot of prestidigitation if we're the incompetent fuckup's your side has claimed we are...
I'm not sure who you mean by "your side?" Me personally? When it comes to gaining, maintaining and wielding power, I think the left can best be described as ingeniously ruthless. They commit to winning at all costs and present a much more solidified front than the Republicans could ever do as of late.

Just because I disagree with their policy and agenda, I don't think their stupid. Well, except for AOC.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states

Post by Bryce » Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:06 pm

MWmetalhead wrote:
Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:00 pm
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 states:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Seems to me nothing in the above clause suggests state Legislatures cannot pass / enact laws that regulate the process they must follow in choosing Electors. In Michigan, the Legislature is required by state law to choose Electors on the basis of the result of the popular vote.
True enough, but in Michigan, the Legislature also sets forth the rules on how the popular vote would be held. The SOS changed the rules without Legislative approval.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic