TexasCHLforum.com

oohrah wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 11:16 am Texas sued other states for how they do their internal business. If SCOTUS had allowed that it would have opened Pandora's box. Would want, say, NJ suing Texas over lack of gun control?

Texas sued because other states blatantly violated the Constitution of the United States with their internal business as you put it. NJ or any other communist fascists states cannot sue Texas as Texas gun laws follow the Constitution. They could sue Texas to require Texas to set forth LESS restrictions as it relates to 2A (Constitutional carry etc.).
SCOTUS decision to not even allow for arguments to be presented is disturbing and sets a very dangerous precedent for all upcoming elections. This will go down in history as perhaps one of the biggest SCOTUS blunders of our history.

It appears that lawlessness prevailed. You can cheat, burn, steal, urinate on the Constitution and much more it appears. The walls have been breached.

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 9:48 am

Paladin wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 9:38 am
But God Bless Texas, the other states who joined the lawsuit, Ken Paxton, Allen West and all those who sought a peaceful, lawful solution to this naked power grab.

Media outlets are saying SCOTUS rejected hearing Texas’ case, but the fact is that it was 18 states who were rejected.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Time to form a more perfect union.

Agree 100%. Words cannot express how disappointed I am in the support of lawlessness at all levels. Very few options they leave us.

Rafe wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:36 pm Fox News just reported that SCOTUS has declined to hear the Texas election case. This deal now looks looks dead.

Yep. Treason runs high. Wouldn’t even hear the arguments.

Don’t mess with Texas.

“Texas files reply brief in election suit at SCOTUS, final step before justices issue order in blockbuster case.

Defendant States do not seriously address grave issues that Texas raises, choosing to hide behind other court venues and decisions in which Texas could not participate and to mischaracterize both the relief that Texas seeks and the justification for that relief," the Texas brief says of the opposition briefs filed by Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia Thursday.

Texas continues: "An injunction should issue because Defendant States have not—and cannot—defend their actions."”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas- ... uster-case

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:06 am If biden becomes president it maybe time for Texas Secede!

Interestingly enough...

“Representative to file bill to allow Texas to secede from United States.

AUSTIN, Texas - A state representative from the Hill Country in Central Texas wants to give Texans the option to opt-out of the United States.

State Rep. Kyle Biedermann, R-Fredericksburg, told his supporters on Facebook that he plans to file a bill allowing for a referendum on secession.“

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/represe ... ted-states

clarionite wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:47 am

parabelum wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:46 am

philip964 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:03 am Breaking:

SCOTUS votes 6.71 to 3.94 against Texas this morning.

Huh?

Did a search and that appears to be 99 44/100 percent untrue. LOL

I didn’t get it.

philip964 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:03 am Breaking:

SCOTUS votes 6.71 to 3.94 against Texas this morning.

Huh?

philip964 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:28 pm

parabelum wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:31 pm I really hope and pray that I’m wrong, but I don’t see SCOTUS taking this or any cases apparently related to the fraud and abuse of the election system because they threw out the PA case. Even more troubling, not ONE justice has written a dissent. Not one of them, even the ones we think of staunch conservatives. Very troubling. They don’t want to get near any of it.

Hannidy and o’Riley, both seem to think SCOTUS will pass.
O’Riley wants a special prosecutor appointed by Barr to investigate the election.

I sure hope that will be the case.

We will see where this goes...

“ Missouri, 16 other states file brief supporting Texas suit to delay presidential elector appointment”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/missou ... ppointment

I really hope and pray that I’m wrong, but I don’t see SCOTUS taking this or any cases apparently related to the fraud and abuse of the election system because they threw out the PA case. Even more troubling, not ONE justice has written a dissent. Not one of them, even the ones we think of staunch conservatives. Very troubling. They don’t want to get near any of it.

+ Missouri for support.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/missou ... reme-court

It would be interesting to see other Trump states begin to roll out similar suits.

srothstein wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 9:28 am I like this. Unfortunately, and I am not a lawyer nor an expert in this area, I see a single problem with it. Texas may not have standing for the lawsuit since it is not an injured party. I really want to see this case go through and it is asking for a remedy the courts could order. It is not asking for a specific winner to be determined, just that the legislature be ordered to choose the electors. This might not make a difference to the election overall, as the legislatures could appoint the Biden electors, "bowing to the expressed will of the people" anyway. But I like the concept and the case argument.

Paxton writes:

“The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections,”

So I read that to be the “injured party”. IANAL of course.