Supreme Court Rules Against Texas

[Bouncing Bill]

The ruling was short, succinct. Here is their ruling and it closes the door on these efforts.

“Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.” 

[SureWord]

Do you ever have anything else to offer here in the community forum besides this incessant election nonsense? Anything edifying or the least bit biblical?

We all know who the god of this world is and this is of know surprise to us. The Supreme Court has been siding with Satan for 50 years now.

You apparently think this is a sign of things getting better when it is nothing but a dog returning to its vomit

Bible believers know better.

[HappyChristian]

No, it doesn't "close" any doors. SCOTUS did not rule on the MERITS of the case, only on their belief that TX did not have standing regarding PA's election activities. There are still a lot of cases out there, in different states, for different reasons.

So, please, stop this. It appears you are rejoicing that Marxism may "win" the day...although it had to STEAL it to "win" it.  But, again, it's not over yet.

There is still process to go through, and, as I said, cases in courts. How about, instead of starting a brand new thread with every little bit of bad news you can rejoice in, you make your comments in the plethora of threads you've already started? (BTW, that's not really a request...from here on out, please place your comments in threads you've already started...otherwise I'm going to think it's spam...)

[HappyChristian]

This article could actually have it's own thread. But because of the plethora of threads already started, I will place it here. I apologize that it does not seem to have to do with the SCOTUS ruling, but it likely does: I kinda think this senator waited until the SCOTUS announcement re: TX to announce this hearing. AND to say that he will not rule out joining a challenge in the joint congressional meeting on Jan 6. I told you it's not over yet.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/sen-ron-johnson-calls-first-senate-hearing-alleged-irregularities-2020-election?fbclid=IwAR11UDBNQQYJFwFMEaQk1_rNmlkMkhW6D6Aw4ao4PL6TqYhc-7zOfg3o9gI

 

"Although Election Day was more than a month ago, questions about the validity of the 2020 presidential election still hang heavy in the air.

For this reason, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has set a hearing for Wednesday to get to the bottom of some of what its chairman, Sen. Ron Johnson, has called “irregularities.”

In his statement announcing the hearing, the Wisconsin Republican said he was “mindful that many of the issues that have been raised have been, and will continue to be, appropriately resolved in the courts.”

However, he noted that “apparent irregularities that have not been fully examined” leave many Americans skeptical of the election results.

“That is not a sustainable state of affairs for our country,” Johnson said. “The only way to resolve suspicions is with full transparency and public awareness. That will be the goal of the hearing.”

Regardless of whether there were irregularities or they had any material impact on the overall outcome, it would seem politicians on both sides of the aisle would support such a hearing.

Instead, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has urged Republicans to shut it down, according to Politico.

“When is this nonsense detrimental to our democracy going to end?” the New York Democrat whined from the Senate floor Thursday. “To use a Senate committee to spread misinformation about our own elections, it’s beyond the pale.”

Schumer called on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to muzzle Johnson and stop President Donald Trump from challenging the election results over alleged voter fraud and irregularities.

All 50 states have certified their votes, and the Electoral College is expected to meet Monday to cast ballots that will make former Vice President Joe Biden the president-elect.

Despite all of the bloviating from the left about Trump just being a sore loser, there are serious allegations that haven’t been completely vetted yet.

There were the “suitcases” full of votes in Georgia and sworn affidavits about hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots vanishing, not to mention the simple logical problem of how Republicans managed to thwart the “blue wave” and flip several seats in the House of Representatives while still losing the presidency.

In addition, 18 states have signed on to a Texas lawsuit challenging the election results on the basis that other states’ irregularities and fraud hindered the ability to hold a free national election.

None of this means that these allegations are true or that they would have even had a major impact on election results, but they deserve the proper serious scrutiny and resolution, one way or another.

According to a tweet from CNN’s Manu Raju with Johnson’s statement, the senator “told reporters he wouldn’t rule out joining an effort to challenge a state’s results when Congress meets in a joint session on January 6. ‘It depends on what we find out,’ he said.”

Overturning a national election doesn’t seem like a realistic remedy at this point, but there’s no reason to ignore these serious allegations anyway, especially since there were factors such as unprecedented numbers of mail-in ballots and historic voter turnout.

Johnson has it right that Americans need a full postmortem on this election in order to accept the results and move on.

If there was no fraud or other problems with the election, what do Schumer and the Democrats have to be afraid of?"

I will reiterate the final question: if there was no fraud, WHAT DO THE DEMS FEAR? A full look at everything would PROVE no fraud, if that were the case. 

[Bouncing Bill]

8 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

This article could actually have it's own thread. But because of the plethora of threads already started, I will place it here. I apologize that it does not seem to have to do with the SCOTUS ruling, but it likely does: I kinda think this senator waited until the SCOTUS announcement re: TX to announce this hearing. AND to say that he will not rule out joining a challenge in the joint congressional meeting on Jan 6. I told you it's not over yet.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/sen-ron-johnson-calls-first-senate-hearing-alleged-irregularities-2020-election?fbclid=IwAR11UDBNQQYJFwFMEaQk1_rNmlkMkhW6D6Aw4ao4PL6TqYhc-7zOfg3o9gI

 

"Although Election Day was more than a month ago, questions about the validity of the 2020 presidential election still hang heavy in the air.

For this reason, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has set a hearing for Wednesday to get to the bottom of some of what its chairman, Sen. Ron Johnson, has called “irregularities.”

In his statement announcing the hearing, the Wisconsin Republican said he was “mindful that many of the issues that have been raised have been, and will continue to be, appropriately resolved in the courts.”

However, he noted that “apparent irregularities that have not been fully examined” leave many Americans skeptical of the election results.

“That is not a sustainable state of affairs for our country,” Johnson said. “The only way to resolve suspicions is with full transparency and public awareness. That will be the goal of the hearing.”

Regardless of whether there were irregularities or they had any material impact on the overall outcome, it would seem politicians on both sides of the aisle would support such a hearing.

Instead, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has urged Republicans to shut it down, according to Politico.

“When is this nonsense detrimental to our democracy going to end?” the New York Democrat whined from the Senate floor Thursday. “To use a Senate committee to spread misinformation about our own elections, it’s beyond the pale.”

Schumer called on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to muzzle Johnson and stop President Donald Trump from challenging the election results over alleged voter fraud and irregularities.

All 50 states have certified their votes, and the Electoral College is expected to meet Monday to cast ballots that will make former Vice President Joe Biden the president-elect.

Despite all of the bloviating from the left about Trump just being a sore loser, there are serious allegations that haven’t been completely vetted yet.

There were the “suitcases” full of votes in Georgia and sworn affidavits about hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots vanishing, not to mention the simple logical problem of how Republicans managed to thwart the “blue wave” and flip several seats in the House of Representatives while still losing the presidency.

In addition, 18 states have signed on to a Texas lawsuit challenging the election results on the basis that other states’ irregularities and fraud hindered the ability to hold a free national election.

None of this means that these allegations are true or that they would have even had a major impact on election results, but they deserve the proper serious scrutiny and resolution, one way or another.

According to a tweet from CNN’s Manu Raju with Johnson’s statement, the senator “told reporters he wouldn’t rule out joining an effort to challenge a state’s results when Congress meets in a joint session on January 6. ‘It depends on what we find out,’ he said.”

Overturning a national election doesn’t seem like a realistic remedy at this point, but there’s no reason to ignore these serious allegations anyway, especially since there were factors such as unprecedented numbers of mail-in ballots and historic voter turnout.

Johnson has it right that Americans need a full postmortem on this election in order to accept the results and move on.

If there was no fraud or other problems with the election, what do Schumer and the Democrats have to be afraid of?"

I will reiterate the final question: if there was no fraud, WHAT DO THE DEMS FEAR? A full look at everything would PROVE no fraud, if that were the case. 

If there had been fraud the courts would not have rejected these cases out of hand. Many state and federal judges, both Democratic and Republican, both liberal and conservative have thrown the out ... some with rather scathing rejections. 

We are a democracy, not an autocracy. The courts, if they do their job, rule by law and not by politics or emotion. And, that is the way it should be. 

[SureWord]

1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

If there had been fraud the courts would not have rejected these cases out of hand. Many state and federal judges, both Democratic and Republican, both liberal and conservative have thrown the out ... some with rather scathing rejections. 

We are a democracy, not an autocracy. The courts, if they do their job, rule by law and not by politics or emotion. And, that is the way it should be. 

Is it a "right" for a man to marry another man? Find it in the Constitution. Find it in God's law.

Does a woman have a "right" to kill an unborn child? Find it in the Constitution. Find it in God's law.

The courts make laws all the time based on politics and emotion so stop with your baloney.

[1Timothy115]

1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

If there had been fraud the courts would not have rejected these cases out of hand. Many state and federal judges, both Democratic and Republican, both liberal and conservative have thrown the out ... some with rather scathing rejections. 

We are a democracy, not an autocracy. The courts, if they do their job, rule by law and not by politics or emotion. And, that is the way it should be. 

We are a REPUBLIC not a democracy. In the words of a famous statesman, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

[SureWord]

10 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

This article could actually have it's own thread. But because of the plethora of threads already started, I will place it here. I apologize that it does not seem to have to do with the SCOTUS ruling, but it likely does: I kinda think this senator waited until the SCOTUS announcement re: TX to announce this hearing. AND to say that he will not rule out joining a challenge in the joint congressional meeting on Jan 6. I told you it's not over yet.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/sen-ron-johnson-calls-first-senate-hearing-alleged-irregularities-2020-election?fbclid=IwAR11UDBNQQYJFwFMEaQk1_rNmlkMkhW6D6Aw4ao4PL6TqYhc-7zOfg3o9gI

 

"Although Election Day was more than a month ago, questions about the validity of the 2020 presidential election still hang heavy in the air.

For this reason, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has set a hearing for Wednesday to get to the bottom of some of what its chairman, Sen. Ron Johnson, has called “irregularities.”

In his statement announcing the hearing, the Wisconsin Republican said he was “mindful that many of the issues that have been raised have been, and will continue to be, appropriately resolved in the courts.”

However, he noted that “apparent irregularities that have not been fully examined” leave many Americans skeptical of the election results.

“That is not a sustainable state of affairs for our country,” Johnson said. “The only way to resolve suspicions is with full transparency and public awareness. That will be the goal of the hearing.”

Regardless of whether there were irregularities or they had any material impact on the overall outcome, it would seem politicians on both sides of the aisle would support such a hearing.

Instead, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has urged Republicans to shut it down, according to Politico.

“When is this nonsense detrimental to our democracy going to end?” the New York Democrat whined from the Senate floor Thursday. “To use a Senate committee to spread misinformation about our own elections, it’s beyond the pale.”

Schumer called on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to muzzle Johnson and stop President Donald Trump from challenging the election results over alleged voter fraud and irregularities.

All 50 states have certified their votes, and the Electoral College is expected to meet Monday to cast ballots that will make former Vice President Joe Biden the president-elect.

Despite all of the bloviating from the left about Trump just being a sore loser, there are serious allegations that haven’t been completely vetted yet.

There were the “suitcases” full of votes in Georgia and sworn affidavits about hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots vanishing, not to mention the simple logical problem of how Republicans managed to thwart the “blue wave” and flip several seats in the House of Representatives while still losing the presidency.

In addition, 18 states have signed on to a Texas lawsuit challenging the election results on the basis that other states’ irregularities and fraud hindered the ability to hold a free national election.

None of this means that these allegations are true or that they would have even had a major impact on election results, but they deserve the proper serious scrutiny and resolution, one way or another.

According to a tweet from CNN’s Manu Raju with Johnson’s statement, the senator “told reporters he wouldn’t rule out joining an effort to challenge a state’s results when Congress meets in a joint session on January 6. ‘It depends on what we find out,’ he said.”

Overturning a national election doesn’t seem like a realistic remedy at this point, but there’s no reason to ignore these serious allegations anyway, especially since there were factors such as unprecedented numbers of mail-in ballots and historic voter turnout.

Johnson has it right that Americans need a full postmortem on this election in order to accept the results and move on.

If there was no fraud or other problems with the election, what do Schumer and the Democrats have to be afraid of?"

I will reiterate the final question: if there was no fraud, WHAT DO THE DEMS FEAR? A full look at everything would PROVE no fraud, if that were the case. 

There was fraud but the Supreme Court is most likely protecting itself by refusing to even listen. They are all political careerists too. My guess is they could be protecting themselves from "court packing" by the Democrats if they make them angry. Maybe something more nefarious. 

We need to understand that an outsider, Donald Trump, was inside for four years and exposed a lot of what has been going on within both Parties for the last 50 years as well as the rest of the political machine (all three branches, the military, bureaucracies, etc) which includes the Supreme Court. They all must protect that machine. That is priority one. 

Oh, and the "Great Reset" is a real thing.

[Bouncing Bill]

1 hour ago, 1Timothy115 said:

We are a REPUBLIC not a democracy. In the words of a famous statesman, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

OK, a democratic republic with a constitution. The constitution is quite clear on giving states the right to set up election rules. It did not give one state the right to negate the vote in another state. If the Supreme Court had ruled for Texas what would stop California from challenging the vote in Texas, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, etc., etc. What a can of worms it would have opened. 

1 hour ago, SureWord said:

There was fraud but the Supreme Court is most likely protecting itself by refusing to even listen. They are all political careerists too. My guess is they could be protecting themselves from "court packing" by the Democrats if they make them angry. Maybe something more nefarious. 

We need to understand that an outsider, Donald Trump, was inside for four years and exposed a lot of what has been going on within both Parties for the last 50 years as well as the rest of the political machine (all three branches, the military, bureaucracies, etc) which includes the Supreme Court. They all must protect that machine. That is priority one. 

Oh, and the "Great Reset" is a real thing.

Face it there was no fraud. There is no law saying one state can challenge the voting in another state. 

The Republican members of the House of Representatives may have violated section 3 of the 14th amendment. If this is brought before the courts and the representatives are found guilty they will be denied their seats in Congress. What a mess!

Section 3 states; No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Bouncing Bill

[SureWord]

2 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

OK, a democratic republic with a constitution. The constitution is quite clear on giving states the right to set up election rules. It did not give one state the right to negate the vote in another state. If the Supreme Court had ruled for Texas what would stop California from challenging the vote in Texas, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, etc., etc. What a can of worms it would have opened. 

Face it there was no fraud. There is no law saying one state can challenge the voting in another state. 

The Republican members of the House of Representatives may have violated section 3 of the 14th amendment. If this is brought before the courts and the representatives are found guilty they will be denied their seats in Congress. What a mess!

Section 3 states; No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

"They have no more cloke for their sin" - John 15:22

The same principle applies. Trump showed up and flushed them all out for the frauds and traitors they are. There's no more hiding it. The Pharisees wanted their King gone so they could remain in power (John 11:47-53). The Establishment wants Trump gone for the same reason.

Whether there was fraud or not (there was) is irrelevant. 50+ million believes there was and the Democrats and MSM have laid the foundation for that "faith" over the last four years. 

Next move, to force Biden out. They are already working on that by "exposing" something 70 million people already knew about his son.

Bill, you wanted Communism. Get ready for it. And no whining when it comes.

Edited December 12, 2020 by SureWord

[Bouncing Bill]

18 minutes ago, SureWord said:

"They have no more cloke for their sin" - John 15:22

The same principle applies. Trump showed up and flushed them all out for the frauds and traitors they are. There's no more hiding it. The Pharisees wanted their King gone so they could remain in power (John 11:47-53). The Establishment wants Trump gone for the same reason.

Whether there was fraud or not (there was) is irrelevant. 50+ million believes there was and the Democrats and MSM have laid the foundation for that "faith" over the last four years. 

Next move, to force Biden out. They are already working on that by "exposing" something 70 million people already knew about his son.

Bill, you wanted Communism. Get ready for it. And no whining when it comes.

Frankly, I doubt you know anything about Communist philosophy, else you would not make such ridiculous comments. Do you know the key tenets of Communism? I doubt it. I'll list them for you. I know of no one either on the left or right who preaches these tenets. I surely do not. I also do not advocate overthrowing democracy, as you so, just because I do not agree with the outcome of an election. History is going to very unkind to the GOP cowards who did not stand up for law, order and the Constitution because they feared for their cushy jobs. They put their jobs ahead of the welfare of the country.

Basic tenets of Communism.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of all credit in the hands of the state, by means of national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; The bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in it’s present form.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Bouncing Bill

[Jim_Alaska]

Folks, The Supreme Court ruled against Texas in saying that Texas has no standing to submit a case against another state. Bill takes this to mean that there was no fraud or illegal activities in this election at all. He has said this over and over again; this tells me that that he has zero understanding of how our judicial system works, or the rules that The Supreme Court goes by.

You will never convince him on a message forum platform that there was no fraud in this election process.

I suspect that by the time this all ends he will have received an education in how our judicial system works, as well as the fact that there most assuredly was fraud, as will be proven.

But he does know exactly how one thing works...Communism. Interesting.

[Bouncing Bill]

5 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Folks, The Supreme Court ruled against Texas in saying that Texas has no standing to submit a case against another state. Bill takes this to mean that there was no fraud or illegal activities in this election at all. He has said this over and over again; this tells me that that he has zero understanding of how our judicial system works, or the rules that The Supreme Court goes by.

You will never convince him on a message forum platform that there was no fraud in this election process.

I suspect that by the time this all ends he will have received an education in how our judicial system works, as well as the fact that there most assuredly was fraud, as will be proven.

But he does know exactly how one thing works...Communism. Interesting.

I  believe I know very well how our judicial system works and it worked well this time. In fact, over 50 cases were summarily thrown out of court and a number of judges chastised the lawyers who brought the cases. Did you notice that the lawyers in their briefs did not say there was fraud. That was for the press. It is not against the law to lie to the press. Telling a lie in a court is a different matter. 

Now, it is an interesting question as to whether the representatives and senators who backed the Texas case can be charged with sedition for violating Section 3 of the 14 Amendment of the Constitution. 

Sedition is defined as, incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority. Was their action seditious? I am not a lawyer and do not know. There are those who say they are guilty and should not be seated in the next Congress. There is precedence for this in our history. If this is brought up it will be interesting to watch. 

I have said all along there was no fraud. The courts have agreed. There is no proof of fraud. And yes, the Texas case was not about fraud but the power of one state to negate the voters of another state. What a mess it would be if a state could do so. Anyway, it is unconstitutional under Article 1 which says that states oversee federal elections. It gives no state authority over voters and voting in other states. Do you agree?

[Jim_Alaska]

Of course I agree, that is the way the process is set up. Why would I not agree with the law? But it does not in any way "close the door on these efforts", as your OP indicated.

There is also a mechanism in place to investigate and if needed take the issue to court. The fraudulent and even treasonous actions that came into play during this election will be exposed and dealt with. There are forces at work here that will go to great lengths to keep out of the light of day.

Why are you so against investigating and court actions? This is part of the process, but you would much rather it just go away. There are millions of people (voters) that believe in our judicial process regarding alleged election fraud, and are all too willing to let legal processes resolve the issue.

After all, we are a country of laws, but it seems that you would rather this be tried in a court of your opinion. It's not over until it's over. How about we just wait and see.

[Bouncing Bill]

15 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Of course I agree, that is the way the process is set up. Why would I not agree with the law? But it does not in any way "close the door on these efforts", as your OP indicated.

There is also a mechanism in place to investigate and if needed take the issue to court. The fraudulent and even treasonous actions that came into play during this election will be exposed and dealt with. There are forces at work here that will go to great lengths to keep out of the light of day.

Why are you so against investigating and court actions? This is part of the process, but you would much rather it just go away. There are millions of people (voters) that believe in our judicial process regarding alleged election fraud, and are all too willing to let legal processes resolve the issue.

After all, we are a country of laws, but it seems that you would rather this be tried in a court of your opinion. It's not over until it's over. How about we just wait and see.

I am very much in favor of court actions. There have been over 50 court actions. All have thrown the cases out. And yes, as you said, we are a country of law and the law states that one state cannot negate the votes of another state. 

Judges are beginning to show impatience with the continued bringing of cases with no evidence. As one judge in Nevada asked --

"At what point does this get ridiculous?" the exasperated judge asked before ruling against the Republicans.

I thank God that Supreme Court judges are appointed for life. This allows them to not worry about politics, but the law. Politicians would love to be able to pressure the judges. But they can't. 

In your first paragraph you state you do not agree with the law. This means you do not like the Constitution as it is the Constitution that is being challenged. Indeed, both the Constitution and democracy is being challenged. 

Time to face the ugly facts. There is no evidence of fraud. There was no fraud. There is only a stubbornly held belief, with no evidence, there was fraud. Time to become honest and face the facts.