Poll of the Day > Supreme Court Rejects Texas Lawsuit Challenging Biden's Victory

(+) Yeah! (+)

I guess that puts a damper on Trump's bid to stay in the WH.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-rejects-texas-lawsuit-challenging-bidens-victory/ar-BB1bRm9c?li=BBnb7Kz

---

And in the process 126 GOP members declared themselves to be traitors to the union. We'll see how that turns out for them.

---

drowning in all the MAGA tears

---

So one state says they need to resolve an issue with another state.
The Supreme Court tells them there is no issue to resolve.
Does anyone else think they're still going to have issue and find a way to resolve it without involving the Supreme Court?

---

shock

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Does anyone else think they're still going to have issue and find a way to resolve it without involving the Supreme Court?

No one rational.

---

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So one state says they need to resolve an issue with another state.
The Supreme Court tells them there is no issue to resolve.
Does anyone else think they're still going to have issue and find a way to resolve it without involving the Supreme Court?

Literally not what happened. Original jurisdiction is supposed to be used for border disputes or water rights, not impotent whining "They voted for a guy I don't like WAHHHHHHHHHH!"

States don't have the right to question the laws of other states. Voting is a states issue, anyone who thought Texas had standing to bring this lawsuit has absolutely no understanding of the constitution.

And I get it you're trying to insuate Texas will try to leave the union despite 46% of the state voting for Biden get real. It isn't going to happen.

I'm getting really tired of all the sedition going on.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Does anyone else think they're still going to have issue and find a way to resolve it without involving the Supreme Court?

No of course not. You actually thought the SCOTUS was going to let states dictate laws and election results to each other? Hello? Are you serious here?

---

keyblader1985 posted...

LMFAO

---

Mead posted...

drowning in all the MAGA tears

---

---

papercup posted...

You actually thought the SCOTUS was going to let states dictate laws and election results to each other?

Wasn't the complaint that another state wasn't following the laws in place?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Wasn't the complaint that another state wasn't following the laws in place?

Trump lost. Its time to accept that.

---

Mead posted...

Trump lost. Its time to accept that.

How is that relevant to whether the law was followed?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Wasn't the complaint that another state wasn't following the laws in place?

No, it was a complaint that the other states changed their laws to make it easier to vote because of COVID.

Which was all kinds of hilarious, because not only is that 100% completely allowed (and if it wasn't, the time to challenge it would be before the election, not after), one of the states where voting restrictions were relaxed was... Texas.

Also worth noting that *even if* Texas had successfully proved that voting laws were changed illegally, it still wouldn't lead to the end they want, which is overturning the election results. Disenfranchising tens of millions of voters who followed their states' instructions for voting in good faith is not a viable remedy to the issues that Texas raised, even if those issues had actually been something illegal that Texas had standing to sue over (which, again, they were not).

This was just Trump cultists once again desperately trying to deny reality and getting slapped around by people who won't put up with their bullshit.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

How is that relevant to whether the law was followed?

Because some politicians are trying to overturn an American election based on a pedantic technicality that no one genuinely cares about. If trump won they wouldnt be saying a damn thing about how they think vote by mail was unlawful. He lost. Thats the end of it.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Wasn't the complaint that another state wasn't following the laws in place?

No. The complaint is they dont like that people voted for the winner.

---

Wasn't one of their points made basically that since Trump got Florida and Ohio he should have been guaranteed to win? That it's never happened where someone got both and lost?

Even though apparently it has.

darkknight109 posted...

*even if* Texas had successfully proved that voting laws were changed illegally, it still wouldn't lead to the end they want, which is overturning the election results. Disenfranchising tens of millions of voters who followed their states' instructions for voting in good faith is not a viable remedy to the issues that Texas raised

If voting laws were changed illegally then it would have been that state which disenfranchised the voters. A ruling to that effect would just acknowledge this. The ruling that it was illegal wouldn't disenfranchise them a second time.

Mead posted...

Because some politicians are trying to overturn an American election based on a pedantic technicality that no one genuinely cares about.

Meanwhile some people care about improving election integrity regardless of if it changes the outcome. We had years of investigating Russian interference based on less evidence than what happened in this election. Why is there no investigation this time?

Mead posted...

If trump won they wouldnt be saying a damn thing about how they think vote by mail was unlawful.

Trump said the election was rigged when he won 4 years ago. If he had won this time he would still call to investigate the oddities in this election.

---

darkknight109 posted...

Also worth noting that *even if* Texas had successfully proved that voting laws were changed illegally, it still wouldn't lead to the end they want, which is overturning the election results. Disenfranchising tens of millions of voters who followed their states' instructions for voting in good faith is not a viable remedy to the issues that Texas raised, even if those issues had actually been something illegal that Texas had standing to sue over (which, again, they were not).

This was just Trump cultists once again desperately trying to deny reality and getting slapped around by people who won't put up with their bullshit.

This, SO MUCH!
States like NC have been found to violate actual laws like the Voting Rights Act with their gerrymandering and/or closing of polling stations by the Supreme Court. The remedy was not in those cases to toss out their entire elected government that was installed illegally and start over again. It was to demand they fix things by the next election (and often they weasel their way towards delaying even that).
If THAT doesn't overturn election results, how in the fuck do you think this complaint would do so?

I found Trump's new TV show



---

So the Supreme Court doesn't care if it's rulings are followed. Nor do they care if voters trust in the election process. I don't think the Texas lawsuit was about overturning the results. I think it was about addressing that voters have concerns and something was being done to resolve them.

Whether they refused to accept the results or had legitimate concerns is irrelevant. We had 4 years of claims that Trump had "an air of illegitimacy". One side raised doubts over election integrity. Now that we have evidence of things being done wrong it's all just suppose to go away because the same side that raised the doubts won this time?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So the Supreme Court doesn't care if it's rulings are followed. Nor do they care if voters trust in the election process. I don't think the Texas lawsuit was about overturning the results. I think it was about addressing that voters have concerns and something was being done to resolve them.

Whether they refused to accept the results or had legitimate concerns is irrelevant. We had 4 years of claims that Trump had "an air of illegitimacy". One side raised doubts over election integrity. Now that we have evidence of things being done wrong it's all just suppose to go away because the same side that raised the doubts won this time?

You are actually out of your fucking mind, you know that?

---

papercup posted...

You are actually out of your fucking mind, you know that?

One side set precedent. I think it's only fair the other side reciprocate.

---

It's straight up painful reading anything you post.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

One side set precedent. I think it's only fair the other side reciprocate.

Yes. One sid set a precedent that they're perfectly okay with hostile foreign governments helping to elect horrible people to positions of power, then trying to start civil wars when they lose.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I think it was about addressing that voters have concerns and something was being done to resolve them.

Something was done to resolve them. The matter was taken to court and Trumps lawyers had the opportunity to make their case and provide any evidence to judges. Theres a reason that nearly every judge dismissed the case. Its not because theyre all part of some conspiracy, its because there simply isnt any merit to the claims of widespread voter fraud.

Trump lost and Trump lost fairly. Just like Hilary lost fairly back in 2016. You dont have to like that. You can start supporting a conservative candidate for 2024 if you want. But reality is what it is.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

If voting laws were changed illegally then it would have been that state which disenfranchised the voters. A ruling to that effect would just acknowledge this. The ruling that it was illegal wouldn't disenfranchise them a second time.

Seriously this case was tried in PA. It was tossed out for being unreasonable by the legal doctrine of laches. The lawsuit was unreasonable for waiting until after the election and using it as an excuse to challenge a result they didn't like. Tossing out millions of votes is not a reasonable relief to the suit.

Almost every state did something and yet this lawsuit which had NO STANDING TO BRING IT only challenged those 4 states.

Meanwhile some people care about improving election integrity regardless of if it changes the outcome. We had years of investigating Russian interference based on less evidence than what happened in this election. Why is there no investigation this time?

This is a lie

Trump said the election was rigged when he won 4 years ago. If he had won this time he would still call to investigate the oddities in this election.

There was no basis for his claims in 16 and no basis has been provided for it now.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So the Supreme Court doesn't care if it's rulings are followed. Nor do they care if voters trust in the election process. I don't think the Texas lawsuit was about overturning the results. I think it was about addressing that voters have concerns and something was being done to resolve them.

Whether they refused to accept the results or had legitimate concerns is irrelevant. We had 4 years of claims that Trump had "an air of illegitimacy". One side raised doubts over election integrity. Now that we have evidence of things being done wrong it's all just suppose to go away because the same side that raised the doubts won this time?

This lawsuit was exclusively about fishing for a pardon. There are no legitimate concerns, there is no method through which the people who have "concerns" can have those concerns allayed since they aren't willing to accept reality.

Trump was Putins puppet, Trump had 4 years to prove he wasn't and spent that 4 years proving he was.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

We had years of investigating Russian interference based on less evidence than what happened in this election.

I gotta just tell you dude, that this is not true. Even the majority of republican senators concluded that Russia did in fact launch wide scale misinformation campaigns across social media and that the Trump campaign did in fact reach out to try to get dirt against their opponent.

They did the same thing this year according to Trumps own intelligence and who knows maybe they wanted Biden to win this time, which is just as concerning. Our elections should not be influenced by misinformation campaigns of foreign adversaries, but nothing at all has been done about that for four years because conservatives staunchly refuse to face reality.

You are not fighting for the truth. You have been bamboozled into believing outright lies.

---

Mead posted...

Something was done to resolve them.

Refusing to acknowledge the issue doesn't resolve it. In one case a judge ruled that as long as observers were in the building that was sufficient, though they weren't actually allowed to observe which was the point of it

Mead posted...

Its not because theyre all part of some conspiracy

It doesn't have to be. I see it more as cowardice and shirking their responsibilities.

Mead posted...
its because there simply isnt any merit to the claims of widespread voter fraud.

I'm not concerned about widespread voter fraud. I'm concerned about the individual instances being addressed. If not calling the result into question then there are still issues that cast doubt on election integrity. That's where my concern lies. The confidence of the people. Just telling voters that it was resolved isn't enough. Voters need to know how it was resolved and it has to have been resolved in a way that they are satisfied with. Right now they aren't satisfied.

Mead posted...

the majority of republican senators concluded that Russia did in fact launch wide scale misinformation campaigns across social media

Is that really all the Democrats were complaining about? Someone posting stuff online. I thought the argument was that people voted one way and results came out different.

Mead posted...

the Trump campaign did in fact reach out to try to get dirt against their opponent.

So if there's a valid reason a candidate should not be eligible to run, and it's true, does it matter that it came from Russia? Every time I've seen this brought up it sounds like Russia wasn't falsifying the dirt, it sounds like they knew of something Hillary was actually guilty of.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

If voting laws were changed illegally then it would have been that state which disenfranchised the voters.

Well, no, because those voters are not being denied their right to vote.

Also, and I feel you're not giving this point the recognition it deserves, those voting laws were not changed illegally. Everything was done aboveboard which is why even the state bringing this forward - Texas - changed its own voting laws in the same way.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Just telling voters that it was resolved isn't enough. Voters need to know how it was resolved and it has to have been resolved in a way that they are satisfied with. Right now they aren't satisfied.

If voters aren't satisfied at this point, that's on those specific voters. All allegations of fraud in this election have been raised, litigated to death, and proven to have no merit. As in, in the over 50 cases Trump and the Republicans have put forward, every single allegation of voter fraud has been proven to be without merit.

Every.

Single.

One.

The Trump campaign has not been able to substantiate even a single one of its claims that actually alleges fraud, nevermind fraud that would put the election results in doubt. At this point any voters who are not convinced of this election's integrity are simply being wilfully ignorant on the matter.

---

in at least one of the cases, the trump team tried to get the judge to do what they demanded, with the promise that they would provide evidence to support their claim at some undetermined time in the future.

that case was dismissed, obviously.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Refusing to acknowledge the issue doesn't resolve it. In one case a judge ruled that as long as observers were in the building that was sufficient, though they weren't actually allowed to observe which was the point of it

No you're referring to a particular snippet when the judge was asking if poll watchers were present when the Trump campaign was trying to argue they weren't.

It doesn't have to be. I see it more as cowardice and shirking their responsibilities.

???

I'm not concerned about widespread voter fraud. I'm concerned about the individual instances being addressed. If not calling the result into question then there are still issues that cast doubt on election integrity. That's where my concern lies. The confidence of the people. Just telling voters that it was resolved isn't enough. Voters need to know how it was resolved and it has to have been resolved in a way that they are satisfied with. Right now they aren't satisfied.

Nonsense. You're not concerned about widespread voter fraud you're just concerned about enough fraud to cause the election to be in doubt. Do you even know what you're saying now?There is no path for getting the confidence of the people who are drinking the koolaid. Even when Barr came out and said "They couldn't find evidence of fraud" instead of any of the cult members going "Oh maybe he is on to something?" they all immediately go "Barr flipped on us"

Stop acting like there is any discussion here. What we have is reality where Biden won a fair election and the alternative where people will refuse to believe anything that supports that reality. There is, at this time, nothing that has been provided to cause the integrity of this election to be questioned.

Is that really all the Democrats were complaining about? Someone posting stuff online. I thought the argument was that people voted one way and results came out different.

This is profoundly ignorant, the only person who alleged fraud in 16 was Trump. Trumpsters have been told this repreatedly, I know you want try doing the "you're just as bad as us!" but we aren't.

So if there's a valid reason a candidate should not be eligible to run, and it's true, does it matter that it came from Russia? Every time I've seen this brought up it sounds like Russia wasn't falsifying the dirt, it sounds like they knew of something Hillary was actually guilty of.

lol dude

what the hell did you do to that post

you had like 20 links of gibberish

---

HellHole_ posted...

what the hell did you do to that post

you had like 20 links of gibberish

Literally just posted it, went in to edit, did nothing just posted the edit and now it looks fine.

@SKARDAVNELNATE have whatever concerns you want dude

there is nothing that merits overturning an entire election. If conservatives dont back down then as a country we are looking at armed conflict within our borders and likely the complete dissolution of the US as a country.

---

darkknight109 posted...

Well, no, because those voters are not being denied their right to vote.

They would be told they voted legally when they hadn't. It's no different from mailing someone a false ballot with the wrong return address, or if the postal worker just leaves the mail in a dumpster because they were lazy. The voter believes they already voted so they don't vote legitimately.

darkknight109 posted...

Also, and I feel you're not giving this point the recognition it deserves, those voting laws were not changed illegally.

44 of the 50 states appear to have thought otherwise.

HellHole_ posted...

in at least one of the cases, the trump team tried to get the judge to do what they demanded, with the promise that they would provide evidence to support their claim at some undetermined time in the future.

that case was dismissed, obviously.

Their motivation is to get the election overturned. If they don't then repairing voter confidence doesn't help them any later on. I don't see these cases as being intended to address the concern I'm referring to. Especially when conducted in the manner described here. I think it would have been better for the country had they focused on the incidents where they could prove something took place.

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

No you're referring to a particular snippet when the judge was asking if poll watchers were present when the Trump campaign was trying to argue they weren't.

There's a difference between being present and having meaningful access. They were suppose to be arguing that observers didn't have meaningful access. As to how it became an issue of being merely present I haven't seen how case developed the way it did. Whether there was a law that was worded a specific way or the Trump campaign was just bad at arguing their position to the judge.

BlackScythe0 posted...

???

???
I don't like GameFAQs new quoting system. It's too easy to lose sight of the original context.
Mead posted there wasn't a conspiracy. I believe this was about the judges that dismissed the cases. My response was that there didn't need to be a conspiracy between the judges.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I know you want try doing the "you're just as bad as us!" but we aren't.

I don't know who "us" is.

BlackScythe0 posted...

What we have is reality where Biden won a fair election and the alternative where people will refuse to believe anything that supports that reality.

So a repeat of 2016. Which is what I've been saying.

BlackScythe0 posted...

This is profoundly ignorant, the only person who alleged fraud in 16 was Trump

This leaves me confused about what the Russia stuff was about then. If the Democrats position wasn't that votes weren't counted as intended then why did they go on with it for so long?

BlackScythe0 posted...

lol dude

Well...?

---

Youve gone so far off the deep end

Its legitimately sad to see

---

Mead posted...

have whatever concerns you want dude

Okay, I will be concerned.

Mead posted...

there is nothing that merits overturning an entire election

Maybe not. I think there is more to worry about than achieving that one thing.

Mead posted...

If conservatives dont back down then as a country we are looking at armed conflict within our borders and likely the complete dissolution of the US as a country.

And this is why voter confidence is so important.

Mead posted...

Youve gone so far off the deep end

Its legitimately sad to see

I haven't changed your thinking and you haven't changed mine.
I'd like to know how Russia supposedly changed anyone's mind about anything over the internet.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I haven't changed your thinking

Not true, youve made me very concerned for your mental health and well being

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'd like to know how Russia supposedly changed anyone's mind about anything over the internet.

Nowhere near as much as our own media could affect the population if it wanted to.

---

La-Li-Lu-Le-Lo

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

I know you want try doing the "you're just as bad as us!" but we aren't.

I agreed with your entire post besides this, why do democrats always act like they are better than everyone else? Its pretentious af

---

Muscles posted...

I agreed with your entire post besides this, why do democrats always act like they are better than everyone else? Its pretentious af

Thats more of a thing that you perceive for some reason rather than an actual reality. Democrats are not better than everyone else.

Only I am.

---

Muscles posted...

I agreed with your entire post besides this, why do democrats always act like they are better than everyone else? Its pretentious af

... Republicans constantly try the "both sides" and the "you do it too" argument. My statement was entirely appropriate.

BlackScythe0 posted...

... Republicans constantly try the "both sides" and the "you do it too" argument. My statement was entirely appropriate.

As someone that hates both parties, it's true. I have a better look of it being an outside observer as opposed to being in the in group.

---

Muscles posted...

As someone that hates both parties, it's true. I have a better look of it being an outside observer as opposed to being in the in group.

You really dont. You have this false idea that insisting that you are independently minded that you somehow have a better sense of perception of the world compared to other people.

But youve been posting here for years and Im sorry to say that you simply do not come across as the brightest of individuals.

---

Muscles posted...

As someone that hates both parties, it's true. I have a better look of it being an outside observer as opposed to being in the in group.

I've never perceived your political commentary as coming from someone who doesn't have a clear bias.