interesting commentary on SC on the Texas case

[atpollard]

It is not lawful for judges or governors to set election policies and rules. That is the responsibility of the state legislatures. That is one side of their 2 part case. ALL the rules changes were done without the legislature being involved.

It was interesting that the changes in Pennsylvania were made in 2019 and the Legislature had a whole year to bring a court challenge on the constitutionality of the change. Only AFTER the election, when voters had mailed in votes in good faith, did they choose to challenge the law. That was the reason the first court rejected the case.

By all means, the Legislature should make the rules, but they have an obligation to actually do so BEFORE an election and not try to enforce laws retroactively because they don’t like the results.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Future elections will be at the whims of judges and governors now to set the rules.

Only if we are in a declared state of emergency with a pandemic raging.

 

[Baptist Believer]

they didn't want to wade into this mess but election fraud won.

No, voters and the rule of law won.

Trump can either concede (to election fraud) and spend the rest of his life in prison...

He will only spend the rest of his life in prison if he has done things that justify that criminal sentence. It has nothing to do with the way the election was conducted, unless you think that Trump has acted illegally in the election.

...or declare martial law.

He would be a fool to do it, and I doubt he would have the support of the military.

 

[777]

Democrats, their media, and their poll workers in four cities "won". And China.

 

[JonC]

Never gonna happen. The SCOTUS ruling in favor of Trump would end the American experiment. End our representative constitutional republic. It is a blatant act of sedition trying to use the court system to pull it off.

If the SCOTUS rules in favor of this travesty, then any state could take any state to court for anything. All it would have to do is claim it was harmed in some way by what took place in some other state. Don't foolishly think it would only apply to presidential elections.

There was never a chance the SC would rule favor of Trump.

With the last justice the SC leads towards adhering to the Constitution (Barrett is an originalist). The SCOTUS is conservative. Texas has absolutely no Constitutional grounds. The attempt was DOA because of the Justices Trump appointed.

 

[777]

SCOTUS didn't rule at all, what they did was to merely decline to hear the case. Seven of them didn't want to hear the case at all. and the two that did went out of their way to say they would want to "reject relief", meaning overturning the election results in those four cheater states.

Hate to say it, but SCOTUS probably did the right thing - flip it, say WA state wanted to sue Texas because they don't have mail in voting only and voter ID and that Texas disenfranchised votes, causing harm to the voters of WA state. Just don't think they wanted to step into that mess, they could be gun shy here, but this was not a good case for Trump voters.

 

[just-want-peace]

Only if we are in a declared state of emergency with a pandemic raging.

If the forces of hell succeed - as it appears so now - you can rest assured that we will have some sort of "pandemic" every election from now on!! IMHO of course!