3 ms·

> They aren't willing to bring any of the supposed election fraud evidence Hm - I recall they did try to bring it to the supreme court and the court declined t

> They aren't willing to bring any of the supposed election fraud evidence Hm - I recall they did try to bring it to the supreme court and the court declined to hear the case.

MattGaiser 5y ago
Texas v. Pennsylvania was about procedures for changing election procedures. I don't recall any fraud being alleged, just Texas saying they did not need to prove it as it was possible.
weakfish 5y ago
Well, you have to have a basic set of evidence for any court to hear it. That was lacking.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Hm - I recall they did try to bring it to the supreme court and the court declined to hear the case. They brought lots of election cases, but they didn't bring allegations of fraud in most of them (Giuliani got chastised by a judge in one case for going on a tirade about fraud even though the case he was arguing did not allege fraud), and in the cases where they initially made fraud or fraud-adjacent claims, those claimsnl were often withdrawn before the case was resolved. Fraud has been something they’ve argued in the media, and in GOP controlled state legilaative show hearings, but not really (at least properly) in court.
legitster 5y ago
Which they did because there was no actual evidence presented.
pyuser583 5y ago
Kind of. A lot of claims were being made. They then filed lawsuits. But there are rules about what lawyers can put in court filings: they can’t just make stuff up. So the lawsuits were paper thin, which contrasted greatly with the extreme claims being made outside the courtrooms. Because the lawsuits were so paper thin, the courts said there’s just not much to consider.
readflaggedcomm 5y ago
Then it was nonsense, just like the outlets Wikipedia bans. If nonsense outlets are the only places you find a story, the story is nonsense.
cartoonworld 5y ago
The case you are remembering is Texas vs Pennsylvania[0] which did not contain allegations or evidence of election fraud. The PDF[1] is available on the court's website. It did not pass muster in some circuit process, working its way up to the Supreme Court. It was instead filed directly with the court due to the fact that Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over inter-state disputes such as this. The law suit alleges that the states changing their election procedures due to the spreading of Sars-CoV-2 is unconstitutional. The court dismissed the case for lack of standing, stating that states do not have this sort of interest in how another state conducts their elections. [0] - https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/texas-v-pennsylvania/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/texas-v-pennsylv... [1] - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/20201209144840609_2020-12-09%20-%20Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Missouri%20et%20al.%20-%20Final%20with%20Tables.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/2020...

> They aren't willing to bring any of the supposed election fraud evidence Hm - I recall they did try to bring it to the supreme court and the court declined to hear the case.

MattGaiser 5y ago

Texas v. Pennsylvania was about procedures for changing election procedures. I don't recall any fraud being alleged, just Texas saying they did not need to prove it as it was possible.

weakfish 5y ago

Well, you have to have a basic set of evidence for any court to hear it. That was lacking.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Hm - I recall they did try to bring it to the supreme court and the court declined to hear the case. They brought lots of election cases, but they didn't bring allegations of fraud in most of them (Giuliani got chastised by a judge in one case for going on a tirade about fraud even though the case he was arguing did not allege fraud), and in the cases where they initially made fraud or fraud-adjacent claims, those claimsnl were often withdrawn before the case was resolved. Fraud has been something they’ve argued in the media, and in GOP controlled state legilaative show hearings, but not really (at least properly) in court.

legitster 5y ago

Which they did because there was no actual evidence presented.

pyuser583 5y ago

Kind of. A lot of claims were being made. They then filed lawsuits. But there are rules about what lawyers can put in court filings: they can’t just make stuff up. So the lawsuits were paper thin, which contrasted greatly with the extreme claims being made outside the courtrooms. Because the lawsuits were so paper thin, the courts said there’s just not much to consider.

readflaggedcomm 5y ago

Then it was nonsense, just like the outlets Wikipedia bans. If nonsense outlets are the only places you find a story, the story is nonsense.

cartoonworld 5y ago

The case you are remembering is Texas vs Pennsylvania[0] which did not contain allegations or evidence of election fraud. The PDF[1] is available on the court's website. It did not pass muster in some circuit process, working its way up to the Supreme Court. It was instead filed directly with the court due to the fact that Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over inter-state disputes such as this. The law suit alleges that the states changing their election procedures due to the spreading of Sars-CoV-2 is unconstitutional. The court dismissed the case for lack of standing, stating that states do not have this sort of interest in how another state conducts their elections. [0] - https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/texas-v-pennsylvania/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/texas-v-pennsylv... [1] - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/20201209144840609_2020-12-09%20-%20Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Missouri%20et%20al.%20-%20Final%20with%20Tables.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/2020...