Exactly how did you "deal with it" in 2016? Did you allow president Trump to make a peaceful, unopposed transition?

You are so stupefied by your pathological obsession with Donald Trump that you are totally blind to what the Grand Poobahs of the Communist backed progressive movement have been planning right under your nose. You may have sucked up the sugar coated bullet points, but you sure as hell missed the fine print.

I do not doubt that in one or two years under the socialist policies of a rogue administration, all those who asked for it are gonna regret it.

.

The case was NOT trying to negate them IF they were made legal by the legislatures of the States. No official in the executive branch has the authority to bypass the legislature and write and pass legislation on their own.

Your link has the list of cases filed, not just the Texas case. Here is the Texas filing.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND BRIEF FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE STATES AND TERRITORIES OF
CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, GUAM, HAWAII,
ILLINOIS, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MINNESOTA,
NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA,
OREGON, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, VIRGINIA, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS,
AND WASHINGTON AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS
AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
BILL OF COMPLAINT
KARL A. RACINE
Attorney General for the District of Columbia
LOREN L. ALIKHAN
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
CAROLINE S. VAN ZILE
Principal Deputy Solicitor General
CARL J. SCHIFFERLE
Deputy Solicitor General
SAMSON J. SCHATZ
HARRISON M. STARK
Assistant Attorneys General
Office of the Solicitor General
Office of the Attorney General
400 6th Street, NW, Suite 8100
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 727-6287
Loren.AliKhan@dc.gov
2
The District of Columbia together with the States and territories of California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, U.S. Virgin Islands, and
Washington (collectively, the “Amici States”) move for leave to file the enclosed brief
as amici curiae in support of defendants and in opposition to plaintiff’s leave to file a
bill of complaint (i) without 10 days’ advance notice to the parties of amici’s intent to
file as ordinarily required by Sup. Ct. R. 37.2(a), and (ii) in an unbound format on 8½-
by-11-inch paper rather than in booklet form.
Plaintiff filed its motion for leave to file a bill of complaint in this matter on
December 7, 2020. On December 8, the Court requested responses to the motion by
3 p.m. on Thursday, December 10. In light of the expedited briefing schedule, it was
not feasible to provide 10 days’ notice to the parties. In addition, the compressed time
frame prevented the Amici States from having the brief finalized in sufficient time to
allow it to be printed and filed in booklet form. When notified, plaintiff and
defendants Pennsylvania and Michigan consented to its filing, and defendant Georgia
informed Amici States that it did not object. Defendant Wisconsin has not yet
responded to Amici States’ request for consent.
As set forth in the enclosed brief, the undersigned Amici States have a strong
interest in the outcome of this case. Specifically, the Amici States have a critical
interest in allowing state courts and local actors to interpret and implement state
election law, and in ensuring that states retain their sovereign ability to safely and
3
securely accommodate voters in light of emergencies such as COVID-19. Amici
States, moreover, have a critical interest in ensuring that their sister states—
Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—can give effect to the millions of
lawfully cast votes targeted by Texas’s lawsuit.
Amici States thus have a distinct perspective on the harms asserted by the
plaintiff as well as the interests of defendants, and the amicus brief includes relevant
material not brought to the attention of the Court by the parties that may be of
considerable assistance to the Court. See Sup. Ct. R. 37.1. The brief describes how
Texas’s interpretation of the Electors Clause would upend states’ systems of
government, and how Amici States’ experiences with safe and secure methods of
voting by mail help illuminate why this Court should deny plaintiff’s motion.
The undersigned Amici States therefore seek leave to file this brief in order to
support defendants’ showing that this Court should deny plaintiff’s motion for leave
to file.

So what else is new?”Supreme Court will not take up Texas led effort to overturn election results” Fox News. Does anyone out there, other than the far left ignorants,
think that the lawsuit was really about overturning the election? It was not. I’m no authority but I surely do not see that. They’ve cheated Trump and they’ve stolen our votes and our Republic. No one in government is ever made to pay for their sins against the people. Im Sick of it. They just reported that several more states have joined Texas.

==================
SC was wrong to not taking this into discussion. They dismiised it right away. the whole focus here is not the states rights. the whole purpose of that case was the effect to our whole country, and to the majority of people whose rights were disenfranchised as a result of the stolen election via fraud of the those 4 states. SC made the wrong decision. This case must be resubmitted. I suggested last night to resubmit with focus on the whole county's effect, the directly injured is the president of the people of this country, and the people who elected him were disenfranchised on their constitutional rights. The case will be resubmitted. These millions of people disenfranchised are protesting and they will not stop until this election is corrected.