Election 2020 Election 2020: It's (almost) over! (maybe...possibly...ahh who are we kidding, it's 2020!)

Reader mode
Lol some redditors are starting to get scared.

cDdrKy4b.jpeg
 
SCOTUS might be reluctant to take this up, if only for the precedent it sets. Imagine if any state can object to the application of law within another state. California being able to object to the application of Texas law. I honestly don't think they are going to want to get anywhere near this.
 
lordmcdeath said:
SCOTUS might be reluctant to take this up, if only for the precedent it sets. Imagine if any state can object to the application of law within another state. California being able to object to the application of Texas law. I honestly don't think they are going to want to get anywhere near this.
Click to expand...
Has any other state bypassed thier legislature to pass something?
 
To be fair the reverse would be a potentially dangerous precedent as well. That executive actions without legislative approval or action can be used to enforce changes to election practices and laws. It can work both ways you understand.

Especially when it would effect other states as well like in the case of a Federal Election.
 
Last edited:
lordmcdeath said:
SCOTUS might be reluctant to take this up, if only for the precedent it sets. Imagine if any state can object to the application of law within another state. California being able to object to the application of Texas law. I honestly don't think they are going to want to get anywhere near this.
Click to expand...
Putting aside that it looks like it's already docketed.

That just means that the court will give a narrow ruling that hits this specific thing while not creating such a precedent.
 
Zachowon said:
PA replied saying "YOU CANT DO THAT!!!"
Click to expand...
PA replied by attempting to argue things that have no bearing on the constitutional claim made by Texas.

The fact is the Texas case is a simple question of "Was it constitutional for these states to change their election laws without going through the legislature?". The fact that a bunch of ballots will get thrown out if the Surpreme Court decides "no", is in fact immaterial.
 
Vaermina said:
PA replied by attempting to argue things that have no bearing on the constitutional claim made by Texas.

The fact is the Texas case is a simple question of "Was it constitutional for these states to change their election laws without going through the legislature?". The fact that a bunch of ballots will get thrown out if the Surpreme Court decides "no", is in fact immaterial.
Click to expand...
Oh I know, I am making the joke that PA is crying Texas is being the national police.
 
Zachowon said:
And I see no reason why states can't sue each other.
Hell this may lead to Texas suing cali over its gun laws...
Click to expand...
They are explicitly allowed to sue each other, and that is one of the very few areas the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction given how even before the Civil War there was an instance where militia from one state attacked militia from another.
 
Floridaman said:
They are explicitly allowed to sue each other, and that is one of the very few areas the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction given how even before the Civil War there was an instance where militia from one state attacked militia from another.
Click to expand...
Did they do that before they started the civil war?
 
Floridaman said:
They are explicitly allowed to sue each other, and that is one of the very few areas the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction given how even before the Civil War there was an instance where militia from one state attacked militia from another.
Click to expand...
Did not know that, but PA is trying to claim act 77 is not an issue.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top