Texas' GOP attorney general tells Steve Bannon podcast 'we're done if anybody can vote' after court ruling Ken Paxton’s comments come after a seismic court ruling in the Lone Star State which heavily impacts the Attorney General’s remit moving forwards
Tom Fenton
4 days ago
A Texas court ruling has prompted the state’s Republican attorney general to admit that the party is “done in Texas” electorally if anyone can now vote.
The comments come from Ken Paxton, who is currently embroiled in a number of controversies relating to his office's investigation into possible voter fraud.
Mr Paxton’s comments come after a Court of Appeals decision which will effectively strip him of the authority to prosecute “voter fraud”, with that now exclusively the job of local DAs.
Since there is no appeal process, all he can do now is ask for a rehearing. Speaking on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast, the AG confessed that the judicial decision could have a big impact on the outcome of Texan elections in years to come.
“We’re done in Texas if anybody can vote,” Mr Paxton bemoaned. “By this November, if we [the GOP} don't get this changed, I think it's very likely we could lose five members of the Texas Supreme Court, we could lose my position, we could lose Governor.”
Taylor Goldenstein
@taygoldenstein
·
37m
Lots of redactions in the Google suit that
@TXAG
posted. Do any lawyers know if that's normal? Don't judges typically have to approve any sealed information? https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/ ... &utm_term=
Ken Paxton says that if the Court of Criminal Appeals does not reverse its decision to exclude Paxton from prosecuting voter fraud, then, there must be a Special Session to put in place a law that allows vigilantes to enforce voter fraud along with the AG. @DonnaHowardTX https://t.co/KSZpdUrY9F
“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.” ― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
The article is paywalled but can I assume that this is a look at me run? State governments don't have a say in the requirements the federal government creates for their contractors. As far as I can tell, were are not talking about making requirements for all companies but those who are choosing to bid and provide services to the federal government.
There are already a host of rules for federal contractors, how is this different?
more from Houston Chronicle wrote:In the 32-page suit, filed Thursday in federal court in Victoria, attorneys for Texas argue that Biden exceeded his authority in violation of the U.S. Constitution and Procurement Act, which outlines the president’s power over contracting decisions. They ask the court to strike the mandates as unconstitutional.
The wage hike impacted about 6,800 federal contractors when it took effect at the end of last month, according to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. The minimum wage in Texas is $7.25 an hour, in line with the federal standard.
“President Biden has chosen to ignore the Constitution, federal law, and all evidence showing the adverse effects of imposing a much higher minimum wage for federal contractors,” Paxton said in a statement. “This administration has caused enough problems for our country. I will not allow them to cost Texans valuable jobs and to worsen the economic downturn.”
IANAL, but it seems to me that the state AG's have an uphill battle to establish that they have standing to file such a lawsuit.
I don't see how the State of Texas can argue that they are being harmed by the president's order. He has not ordered that contractors doing business with the states must pay their employees $15/hour.
OTOH, who does have standing to sue if an EO exceeds the president's authority? Congress? In this case, could federal contractors have standing to sue, arguing that THEY are the ones being harmed, by being forced to pay their employees more?
Also, what happens to existing contracts? I can envision a contractor who has won a five year contract and been performing it for, say two years, that was originally priced on the assumption that they could pay their employees $12/hour, now balking at having to increase their costs by 25 percent. Can they automatically raise the price they charge the government?
Add-on question: do companies with federal contracts need to pay all their employees the higher minimum wage, or only those working on government contracts? From what I understand many of the large corporations operate special legally separated entities (divisions) to work on government contracts.
RTH10260 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 10:19 pm
Add-on question: do companies with federal contracts need to pay all their employees the higher minimum wage, or only those working on government contracts? From what I understand many of the large corporations operate special legally separated entities (divisions) to work on government contracts.
I worked for an IT company decades ago. The contract was with EEOC. A few months out, I suddenly got a BIG raise. The company realized that women were not paid the same as men in the same work category. More accurately, the company was scared that EEOC would find out, especially since we worked directly with EEOC!
You can't wait until life isn't hard anymore before you decide to be happy.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
I posted the other day that she had been honored. I was waiting to see how long it took for this kind of stupid. Not long.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
Texas AG Says Bar Is Suing Him Over 2020 Election Challenge
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said Friday that the state bar association plans to sue him over his failed efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election based on claims of fraud, raising yet another legal danger as the embattled Republican is locked in a primary runoff.
Since last summer, the State Bar of Texas has been investigating complaints over Paxton's petitioning of the U.S. Supreme Court to block President Joe Biden’s victory over Donald Trump. The group has not publicly filed a suit against Paxton, but it asked an Austin-area court Friday to impose unspecified discipline on a member of his staff for alleged professional misconduct in the election suit.
Paxton's top deputy, Brent Webster, was “dishonest” and made “false statements” in petitioning the Supreme Court to overturn the election, according to the bar's complaint to a Williamson County court. Webster did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
Paxton said he stood behind his challenge to the “unconstitutional 2020 presidential election,” as he blasted the bar and announced an investigation into a charitable group associated with it.
“I am certain that the bar will not only lose but be fully exposed for what they are: a liberal activist group masquerading as a neutral professional association,” Paxton said on Twitter.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
sad-cafe wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 8:34 pm
why isn't he impeached?
In Jail?
He could share a cell with Skeletor.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler