>If you can provide a link with meaningful substance, that counters the specific claims being made in the Texas lawsuit, or any other election lawsuit, I would like to see it.

Well, prucomaclu, aren't you ashamed of yourself for being so gullible, delusional, and Anti-American to think Texas's fraudulent lawsuit actually had a chance? Shame on you, and shame on Texas.

Texas: Don't mess with America!

https://www.mediaite.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-rejects...

>BREAKING: Supreme Court Rejects Texas Election Lawsuit

>The Supreme Court has smacked down the much-talked-about Texas lawsuit to overturn the results of the election.

>Days after rejecting a Pennsylvania case, the order from the Supreme Court reads Texas’ motion “is denied for lack of standing” and says “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.” [...]

>Furthermore, the complaint was riddled with falsehoods and unproven conspiracy theories of voter fraud that centered around a bogus statistical analysis that claimed there was only a “1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000” chance of Biden winning the four states. [...]

>“Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated,” Pennsylvania’s brief stated.

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1337540950348996608

Brad Heath @bradheath

Here's the Supreme Court order rejecting Texas' attempt to throw out the results of the presidential election in four other states. The court declines to hear it; the only dispute is a technical one over the manner by which it is killed.

It's over.

The court's decision - that Texas lacks standing to bring this case - means it could not and did not reach the other issues. But these claims have all been rejected for many, many, many other reasons by other state and federal courts. Many.

Justices Alito and Thomas indicated that the court was (in their very consistent view) required to hear the case but that they too "would not grant other relief" - meaning they too wouldn't sign on to Texas' request for an injunction throwing out the election.

After all that, not one of the three Supreme Court justices nominated by President Trump made even a squeak in public to support this breathtaking attempt to invalidate the election he lost.

Again - this is over.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p86...

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020

ORDER IN PENDING CASE

155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of
complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of
the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially
cognizable interest in the manner in which another State
conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed
as moot.

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:
In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a
bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original
jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore
grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not
grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

CERTIORARI GRANTED

20-222 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, ET AL. V. AR TEACHER RETIREMENT, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.