# If blame is to be assigned for the Jan. 6th protest, our S.C. should be at the top of the list!



## johnwk (Jan 10, 2021)

When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.



Keep in mind the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in this matter, and refusing to take up the case and at the very least hear and rule on the arguments, our Supreme Court left 18 States, and 75 million citizens of the United States, with no one left to adjudicate the numerous election violations listed in the Bill of Complaint, and thus were denied a fundamental right to a redress of grievances.

I sincerely suspect had the Supreme Court did its job, and hear the Texas case and ruled upon its particulars, the vast majority of Trump’s 75 million voters would have accepted the court’s ruling and moved on.

Where, I ask, are the people to go, when the Supreme Court’s door is slammed in their face?

I think it’s time to at least put some blame, if not most of the blame, on the Supreme Court of the United States which I believe neglected its duty in a time of great need.



JWK



*When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery. *


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jan 10, 2021)

johnwk said:


> When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If that is the case, then you can blame George W. Bush, establishment Republican for putting John Roberts as chief...


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 10, 2021)

johnwk said:


> When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The federal govt. is not able to do anything concerning the election of a president that is all done by the state according to the Constitution. So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over. Only the states can make the rules for election of a president in their own state, they can't  change how another state votes  because there is no such law governing the ability to do as such.


----------



## Agit8r (Jan 10, 2021)




----------



## Claudette (Jan 11, 2021)

johnwk said:


> When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree. Great post. The SC sure didn't fulfill their duties and it was a slap in the face to the American people.


----------



## TheParser (Jan 11, 2021)

johnwk said:


> When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The Supreme Court is made up of 9 human beings.

They want to keep their dignified jobs.

It's fun to be a Justice.

The Dems have told them to toe the party line or be packed.

In fact, they have already "requested" that one male Justice retire now so that he can make room for a nice liberal.

So, of course, they did not have the guts to touch the hot potato of voter fraud.

Poor President Trump! He actually thought the Court would do its job in this instance.


----------



## johnwk (Jan 11, 2021)

Claudette said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> > When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.
> ...



Unfortunately it appears that Justice Roberts has joined the cancel culture and told 18 states and 76 million citizens of the United States to go pound sand when it refused to give an evidentiary hearing to the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT

JWK

_*When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.*_


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 11, 2021)

TheParser said:


> It's fun to be a Justice.



_“It's good to be the King.”_


----------



## johnwk (Jan 11, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over.



*The truth is, federal elections laws within the various states are indeed subject to federal regulation! Let us look at some facts.*

Our Constitution by its 14th Amendment provides for a penalty for any abridgement of the right to vote making any abridgement federally protected.

By our Constitution’s 15th Amendment, the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, making this right federally protected.

By the 19th Amendment the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex making any abridgement federally protected.

By the 24th Amendment The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reasons of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

And by the 26th Amendment, the right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.

And, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 declares “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors …” Keep in mind the Legislatures of the various States are bound by their state constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

An example in which a State Legislature has violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of our federal Constitution is the State of Pennsylvania, allowing no-excuse mail in ballots to be counted without the PA Constitution being amended to allow such ballots.


*Yes. Insuring only legal votes are counted is a federal question*

JWK

_*When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.*_


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 11, 2021)

johnwk said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over.
> ...


All legal votes were counted.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 11, 2021)

johnwk said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > johnwk said:
> ...


One state can't sue another state to force them to change their laws on voting..


----------



## johnwk (Jan 11, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> > It's fun to be a Justice.
> ...




We are getting to look more and more like Venezuela where elections are rigged and the opposition is canceled


JWK


*First the President is cut off from twitter, then Sen. Hawley’s book is cancelled, then the WalkAway Facebook page is taken down. . . Is it not self-evident a dangerous and un-American pattern is developing to cancel conservative speech?*


----------



## johnwk (Jan 11, 2021)

Claudette said:


> I agree. Great post. The SC sure didn't fulfill their duties and it was a slap in the face to the American people.



See: How the Supreme Court Caused the Riot at the Capitol

January 11, 2021

_"The Court’s stated reason for turning down the case brought by Texas against Pennsylvania and other swing states was its ruling that one state has no “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.” That should go down in history as one of the dumbest things the Court ever said, right up there with “separate but equal” as a justification for racial segregation or “three generations of imbeciles is enough” as a justification for mandatory sterilization.

The question was not how Pennsylvania conducted “its” election, as the Court wrongly characterized the issue. The allegations went to the constitutional legitimacy of election procedures in a presidential election in which voters in both Texas and Pennsylvania participated. If one state may illegally manipulate votes in a presidential election, the influence of all the other states that do play by the rules is undermined. The Court was essentially saying that one team has no interest in whether the other team is cheating."_

Indeed! When Justice Roberts refused to hear the Texas lawsuit joined in by 17 other states, and refused to hear the grievances of 76 million American Citizens, he opened the door to predictable outrage and frustration!

JWK

MLK was spot on when he said . . . "*A riot is the language of the unheard".*


----------



## johnwk (Jan 12, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> All legal votes were counted.


Along with illegal votes.

JWK

*When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery. *


----------



## johnwk (Jan 14, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over.



The Supreme Court has "original jurisdiction" over such matters.


Let us not forget our Supreme Court spat in the face of 76 million Americans and 18 States by refusing to do its job and grant an evidentiary hearing of the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT which itemized illegal voting practices in a number of States that blatantly violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

*Why is our Supreme Court not being pointed to for its part in causing anger and helping to incite 76 million people who merely wanted their day in Court and a redress of grievances addressed?*

JWK

*When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.*


----------



## johnwk (Jan 14, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> One state can't sue another state to force them to change their laws on voting..



Oh, my dear, to the contrary!  When a state adopts rules or laws which violate the provisions of our Constitution, you bet another state can sue, and the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over such cases. 


Let me suggest you take a moment and read our Constitution, and specifically the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, in which all the States are commanded that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the _Legislature thereof may direct,_ a Number of Electors.”

This particular provision of our Constitution, and the protection afforded by the requirement, was ignored by defendant States mentioned in the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT

JWK


_*“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story*_


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 14, 2021)

johnwk said:


> When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is as ignorant as it ridiculous and wrong.


----------



## johnwk (Jan 14, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> > When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.
> ...


And yet, you offer no intelligent rebuttal.

JWK

*Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of*


----------



## johnwk (Jan 16, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> > When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.
> ...



Oh, to the contrary!


*In answer to your post, members on our Supreme Court have aided domestic Revolutionaries in undermining the sanctity of our federal election process and our very system of government!*

.

There is no question in the minds of honorable people, that our Supreme Court members not only spat upon our Constitution, but also spat upon 18 States and 76 million people when they refused to give an evidentiary hearing, listen to sworn witnesses, evaluate evidence, and provide a remedy for a redress of grievances they, and only they, have original jurisdiction over.

For members of our Supreme Court to allege that corruption of a federal election in one state, as distinguished from a local election in that state, does not cause an actual _cognizable injury or threat_ to the remaining states, and to the people of those states, is to falsely assert that the corruption in one state is not a threat and direct assault upon, and injury to, our democratic system of government and its rule of law, and thus, a _cognizable injury_ to the United States and the law abiding and freedom loving people thereof.

Indeed! The corruption of a federal election in one state is without question an assault and _cognizable injury_ upon the entire United States, her citizens, and their very system of government.

As succinctly stated by a Justice of our Supreme Court, when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state _*"they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain"*_ ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941).

JWK

_*When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.*_


----------



## johnwk (Jan 23, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> The federal govt. is not able to do anything concerning the election of a president that is all done by the state according to the Constitution. So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over. Only the states can make the rules for election of a president in their own state, they can't  change how another state votes  because there is no such law governing the ability to do as such.



*Pennsylvania abridged the voting rights of citizens in other States and our Supreme Court ignored enforcing the rule of law!*

Let us look at the facts.

Electors are chosen by a popular vote of the people.

If a state’s employees, e.g., in Pennsylvania, violate the State’s Constitution and corrupt the electoral process by introducing a million illegal ballots in a federal electoral process with the intention of favoring a particular candidate, not only has that State’s voters’ right to vote been abridged, but the illegal activity has corrupted the federal electoral process for voters across the nation who have cast ballots in accordance with _*the rule of law*_


Elevating a particular candidate in one state by illegal methods is most certainly an abridgement of the right to vote of people in others states whose legal votes are rendered meaningless, and diminished by the amount of illegal ballots counted in another state.  [1]


As succinctly stated by Justice Douglas eighty years ago, when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state _*"they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" *____ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".


[1] NOTE: _Over 1 million illegal no-excuse mail in ballots were counted in PA’s election results._

JWK


_*When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens.*_


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 23, 2021)

johnwk said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > The federal govt. is not able to do anything concerning the election of a president that is all done by the state according to the Constitution. So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over. Only the states can make the rules for election of a president in their own state, they can't  change how another state votes  because there is no such law governing the ability to do as such.
> ...


One state doesn't provide another state with voting rights. Each state may decide the laws on voting in each state.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 23, 2021)

johnwk said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > All legal votes were counted.
> ...


Then show us the illegal ones.


----------



## johnwk (Jan 23, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


And what does that have to do with what I posted and you quoted above?

 
JWK

*There can be no “unity” between socialist Leaders who lure voters with a piece of free government cheese, and Leaders who support and defend rights associated with property ownership, a meritocracy and a free market, free enterprise system!*


----------



## busybee01 (Jan 23, 2021)

johnwk said:


> When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Worth noting that the complaint provided o evidence. Just accusations. There was no reason to hear the case. Also the accusations had been addressed in numerous court cases. Thomas and Alito supported hearing the case but they saw no reason to grant any relief. Nothing would have changed.


----------



## busybee01 (Jan 23, 2021)

johnwk said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > johnwk said:
> ...



You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. There was no evidence provided that election fraud occurred. Also the judges appointed by Trump concurred.  You want to tell 81 million voters to pound sand by throwing out their votes. That is what happens in banana republics.

Our written Constgitution gives fealty to states over elections. That is the supreme law oif the land. You are the ones engaging in treachery.


----------



## busybee01 (Jan 23, 2021)

johnwk said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > One state can't sue another state to force them to change their laws on voting..
> ...



You are a liar. The legislature directed that electoral votes be awarded to the perason who gets the most votes. No one violated the Constitution.


----------



## busybee01 (Jan 23, 2021)

johnwk said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > johnwk said:
> ...



You Trump terrorists attempted to attack our elecdtiopn system. Trump attempted to slow down the delivery of mail ballots by the Post Office.

Trump supporters are not honorable people. They are Nazis who want to overturn the votes of 81 mjillion people who voted for Biden. That is a attack on our country. The fact is that not one shred of evidence was provided by any state of election fraud. The Trump lawyers had ample opportunities to provide evidence and failed to do so. By your standard, the courts could have overturned Trump's election in 2016 and given Clinton the Presidency. You would have been screaming them. 

Trump had ample opportunity to provide evidence to various courts at the state and federal level and could not provide that evidence. The states provided no evidence either. Provide evidence and then talk about evidentiary hearings. You throw around the word corruption but you have no clue what you are talking about.


----------



## busybee01 (Jan 23, 2021)

johnwk said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > TheParser said:
> ...



That is exactly what YOU are trying to do.


----------



## busybee01 (Jan 23, 2021)

johnwk said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > The federal govt. is not able to do anything concerning the election of a president that is all done by the state according to the Constitution. So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over. Only the states can make the rules for election of a president in their own state, they can't  change how another state votes  because there is no such law governing the ability to do as such.
> ...



No illegal votes were counted in Pennsylvania.


----------



## johnwk (Jan 23, 2021)

busybee01 said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> > When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.
> ...



*You apparently do not know how the judicial system works!*

In original jurisdiction cases, such as the Texas lawsuit is, the Supreme Court usually appoints a “special master” who then hears the evidence, establishes facts, and then makes its recommendation to the Court. To the best of my knowledge a special “Master’ was never appointed. The Court refused to allow a hearing of the Bill of Complaint, review evidence, listen to sworn witnesses, and it ducked the case by falsely asserting Texas had not demonstrated a "judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections".

In fact, the charges made in the Texas Bill of Complain, if true, do establish a "judicially cognizable interest" in the defendant states, which are alleged to have engaged in illegal voters activities in a federal electoral process.


As succinctly stated by Justice Douglas eighty years ago, _when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state *"they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" _*___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".



JWK

*There can be no “unity” between socialist Leaders who lure voters with a piece of free government cheese, and Leaders who support and defend rights associated with property ownership, a meritocracy and a free market, free enterprise system!*


----------



## bodecea (Jan 23, 2021)

johnwk said:


> When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just like any other spouse abuser....blame others...."look what you made me do!"


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jan 23, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


But per the federal constitution, those voting laws must be _legislated_. PA did not do that. That would nullify all non-excused mail-in votes as illegal. Roberts stayed out of that when it was challenged months before the election. He obviously feared the threat of left wing violence.


----------



## johnwk (Jan 24, 2021)

busybee01 said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



What is the lie you are accusing me of? 

JWK
*When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens. *


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 24, 2021)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > johnwk said:
> ...


That is not what the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania said about the law. 
The US Supreme Court refused to hear the case on the grounds that the issue was that Texas has no standing in the matter.
*U.S. Supreme Court throws out Texas lawsuit contesting 2020 election results in four battleground states*
The lawsuit challenged election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The high court said Texas did not have standing to bring the case.

In a few brief sentences, the high court said it would not consider the case for procedural reasons, because Texas lacked standing to bring it.

"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections," the court wrote in an unsigned ruling Friday evening.








						U.S. Supreme Court throws out Texas lawsuit contesting 2020 election results in four battleground states
					

The lawsuit challenged election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The high court said Texas did not have standing to bring the case.




					www.texastribune.org


----------



## busybee01 (Jan 24, 2021)

johnwk said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> > johnwk said:
> ...



There has to be evidence. The states provided no proof of this. There is also a judicial record as the charges were a rehash of previous Trump cases. The Supreme Court acted correctly.


----------



## busybee01 (Jan 24, 2021)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > johnwk said:
> ...



No excuse voting was passed by the state legislature and signed by the Governor. Also the state Supreme Court has the right to interpret the state's constitution.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 24, 2021)

andaronjim said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> > When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.
> ...



The vote, had their been one, would have likely been  7-2.  There was nothing to be gained.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 24, 2021)

johnwk said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over.
> ...



Uh, no.


----------



## wamose (Jan 24, 2021)

Agit8r said:


>


McConnell misses the point again. When courts sweep allegations under the rug out of laziness or even worse, bias, then that is when we will never have another election accepted. Well that's exactly what the SC did and that is why we won't have confidence in any election going forward.  The SCs refusal to hear the problem is definitely at the root of all this bullshit, regardless of what Mr. Turtle says. There's another reason for not trusting the Turtle. He has big monetary interests in China and Trump was on the verge of putting those assholes in their place. The turtle couldn't have that. Bad Turtle.


----------



## Rambunctious (Jan 24, 2021)

When the court fails you in seeking justice.....when they refuse to view or hear evidence.....what's left?....


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jan 24, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


Texas and every other state in the union has standing in the matter because the violations impact them and not just the individual states implicated. The refusal to consider the case was a result of shakedown, the fear of more democrat violence.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jan 24, 2021)

busybee01 said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


No, it wasn’t. It was not legislated, it was decreed.


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Jan 25, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> > When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.
> ...



I'm a republican but really don't like my fellow Republicans. A large majority of them believe an invisible omnipotent being is their best friend. Trump could easily convince them that purple aliens make milk shakes out of frog anuses and those milk shakes power the sun.  People in Nebraska have no say in the arrest of a meth dealer in Minnesota and vice versa. I don't know about the other states but Pennsylvania has a long history of cheating in elections but this is the responsibility of citizens of Pennsylvania not the citizens of Texas.  To my knowledge the federal government has never held an election in the entire history of this country. States hold their own elections. 

Most Trump supporters aren't retarded idiots that believe in a magical sky daddy but a very large number are that retarded. If they believe in a magical god that is their best friend then they will believe anything.  Trump has a valid concern but he knew full well that there was no legal recourse. He was just pandering to idiots.

With that being said I sure hope Trump runs for president under a third party in 2024. That would be epic.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jan 25, 2021)

vasuderatorrent said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > johnwk said:
> ...


The states have an obligation per the US constitution when it comes to elections. Lots of trump supporters are aware of this. You need to check your retardation.


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Jan 25, 2021)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



When someone robs a liquor store in Delaware, the cops, the sheriff, and all the way up to the Delaware Attorney General can refuse to arrest that individual.  The state of Idaho cannot step in and demand that individual be arrested. If there is misbehavior at county boards of election in Wisconsin then the Wisconsin State Board of Elections has full jurisdiction.

What is this constitutional duty that you reference that requires folks in Idaho to enforce Massachusetts election laws? I call BS.

On a related note: Is Jesus your best friend too?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jan 25, 2021)

vasuderatorrent said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > vasuderatorrent said:
> ...


Robbing liquor stores in Delaware does not impact who the US president is in Texas. The presidential election in Delaware does.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 25, 2021)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> > When someone robs a liquor store in Delaware, the cops, the sheriff, and all the way up to the Delaware Attorney General can refuse to arrest that individual.  The state of Idaho cannot step in and demand that individual be arrested. If there is misbehavior at county boards of election in Wisconsin then the Wisconsin State Board of Elections has full jurisdiction.
> ...



  I had almost that exact same thought, when I saw the idiotic attempt an an analogy, thought in a broader way.  A liquor store robbery in Delaware doesn't impact the people in Idaho.  But the Presidential election, though divided up into a collection of state events, affects the entire nation.  It most certainly is the concern of the people in one state, if the election in another state is rife with fraud.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Jan 26, 2021)

*" Lying Because None Is Willing To Call Them On It "

* Criminals At Large **


Moonglow said:


> All legal votes were counted.


That statement is emphatically false .

Republicans showed up in person at the voting polls for the very reason of complying with the methods passed by the legislatures and the abridgments to the voting methods that were not passed by the legislatures were unlawful and criminal and a violation of civil wrights of citizens .

The laws on the books that had been passed by state legislators , at the time of the election , determine the manner and place by which legal votes are to be counted , and those methods were not followed and the laws were broken - Can Federal And State Legislators Be Prosecuted By We The People For Breaking Article 1 Section 4 Of Us Constitution ?  .









						Experts: Not all states ready to hold safe elections in pandemic
					

Many states don't offer the policies and flexibility voters will need to avoid COVID-19.




					www.cidrap.umn.edu
				



_*All states except 16 offer no-excuse mail-in or absentee voting. The 16 states offer only in-person voting,* which requires transportation and could deter voters concerned about infection—particularly those who are older or have underlying medical conditions that put them at high risk for poor outcomes._


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Jan 26, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > vasuderatorrent said:
> ...



The Federal government didn't hold an election. 50 states held 50 seperate elections. I understand your point but in reality we follow the laws. Sometimes laws are fair. Sometimes they are not. Trump doesn't get to make up laws just because a huge percentage of his follows are idiots (like you). The president isn't selected by the people. (Ever heard of the electoral college?) The president is decided by the electors. It is up to each state to select the electors from their state. If something was foul the Supreme Court would have heard it.

Lets join united and refuse to be dumb.


----------



## beautress (Jan 26, 2021)

Maybe the Communists do not wish to have Texas as a state anymore. If the Democrat communists actually pass the "nobody can criticize any Democrat in leadership or membership for any reason" law, it would be smarter to divorce rather than to murder the outraged spouse who no longer tolerates lying, extortion, and divisiveness of Joe's handlers who have no use for those who insist on having the truth told them.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 26, 2021)

johnwk said:


> When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Texas petition to file a bill of complaint was hot garbage from the beginning. Texas has no standing to challenge the voting laws of other States, as it had no plausible harm caused by OTHER people voting. Had the Supreme Court accepted the case, it would have been a 50 way battle royale of every state suing every other state each time the slightest change was made to any voting law or implementation.

*And the "Stop the Steal" folks would never have accepted any ruling from the Supreme Court. A*nything that contradicts their conspiracy is folded into it. You had everyone from the Georgia Governor to the Georgia Secretary of State to the Georgia Voting Implementation Manager all debunking their 'stolen election conspiracy'.....

...and the Stealers just folded them into the conspiracy.

Anyone who doesn't ape the conspiracy is part if it. And shocker, the Stealers folded the Supreme Court into their silly little conspiracy too.


----------



## Dadoalex (Jan 26, 2021)

johnwk said:


> When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So the SCOTUS ruled in a manner some people didn't like and that is a justification for trying to assasinate/execute the elected Senators and Representatives and hang the VP?

Really?
So Citizens United gives anyone who doesn't agree with it the right to ,murder police officers?
And calling Trump's emoluments lawsuits moot gives anyone the right to execute members of the SCOTUS?

Now you see why you people can't hold office anymore.  You don't understand the Constitution, the law, democracy, or why it's not a good idea to turn your underwear inside out so you can wear them another week.


----------



## Dadoalex (Jan 26, 2021)

johnwk said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over.
> ...


Well, you quoted lots of stuff but nothing you quoted give the federal government the power to decide how a state conducts its elections.  Sure, you covered who can vote and who they can vote for but the voting processes are left to the states and, THEREFORE, the state of Texas, no matter how many Trump sycophants sign on to their suit, and which Cruz, Hawley, and the rest of your Harvard/Yale educated Trump suckups should know, has no standing to tell PA how to conduct their elections.

Washington (state) didn't sue all the states without no-request absentee voting did they?  Know why WA didn't sue TX?  BECAUSE WA DOESN'T HAVE STANDING TO TELL TX HOW TO CONDUCT ITS ELECTIONS.  An argument YOU would be making if, in fact, WA were to sue to overturn the TX vote.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jan 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


The US constitution stipulates that states must _legislate_ election rules.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 27, 2021)

johnwk said:


> When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks johnwk I agree with the lawmaker who stated plainly that ALL Americans share responsibility for DC. This includes people who participated in the election whether agreeing or disagreeing with the contested changes involving mail-in ballots. This dispute over the rules means 40-60% of the millions voting for Republican, Libertarian or other candidates or not voting at all never consented to the election rules and have rights to dispute its validity as binding on us. 

I believe we can argue for discrimination by creed, and sue Democrats as a Party for conspiring to violate civil rights and protections of the laws from discrimination. Unless we are all accommodated and treated equally as individuals, to the same standards that Democrats demand for LGBT identify, beliefs, practices and expressions to be protected by law and included in public policy without bullying or harassing, then it is discrimination by creed and class to require the public to accommodate beliefs and practices of 4% of the population while lobbying to bully, exclude, override or "seek to deprogram by re-education" 40-60% of the population for having beliefs in opposition to Liberal Statism that Democrats as a Party have sought to establish through Govt using solicited donations to collectively "deny, deprive, disparage" equal civil rights and liberties of such persons based on creed and class.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


Dear Dadoalex 
The issue was contested states that didn't follow Constitutional agreed standards requiring state legislatures to VOTE on rule changes. Contested changes were made by other administrative means or offices without actually voting.

You are right that we have not addressed issues where state decisions affect national policy and representation. A similar issue surrounds DC seeking statehood when this indirectly and unintentionally affects national representation due to interference and influence of political parties that hijack and abuse the Senate to force party agenda on all 50 States by gaining a majority. 
This was not the intent of the Senate, but this interference by Party has caused simple State elections to become an issue of protecting representation of other States. Similarly to voting on DC statehood where equal rights of those citizens has been denied until a solution is found that doesn't cause other citizens in other states to get oppressed by "partisan dominance in the Senate" outside Constitutional rules.

I believe we will need a Convention of States by Party to set up a third system, outside Constitutional govt, for people to represent themselves by Party in ordervto keep Political Beliefs and representation out of federal govt and process. Only where Parties agree on common policies should those be implemented by state or federal govt accordingly. Where we disagree can be kept separate by State or by Party for taxpayers to fund or defund at will. Thus, I propose the Electoral College district system be expanded to provide taxpayers representation by Party outside formal govt, similar to party conventions or media not regulated by govt. And resolve conflicts there, so agreed solutions can be recommended to govt to implement. We could also agree to separate External from Internal positions of President and VP to have the top two tickets both serve together but in separate capacities and administrative roles as approved by the people, parties and states. And as for DC and PR, these districts/territorities could be added as sovereign municipalities or island states under Hawaii or Alaskan statehood. So ANY district or territory not represented by the current system could opt to annexed under Hawaii to have liberal/Democratic representation in the Senate, or join under Alaska to have Conservative representation while keeping the Senate at 100. All Native settlements could be included this way by adding them to either Alaska or Hawaii where the Kingdom of Hawaii has continually petitioned to restore its native sovereignty. We can have both internal sovereignty and external national security if we agree to separate these. For external govt I recommend keeping states at 50 and change the rest through an INTERNAL system of govt that resolves policy issues based on proportional representation, conflict resolution, and either consensus or separation by Party. So it doesn't interfere with rights of people and states through the external system governed by the Constitution.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jan 27, 2021)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> > johnwk said:
> ...


Which PA didn’t do.


----------

