Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat theirIt is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
way to victory. The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.
And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
slitting their own wrists.
I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it. I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point. I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case. I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes loyalty to Trump or the Republican party by any justice.....rather than loyalty to the law and the Constitution.
As the court rejecting Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v Pennsylvania, et al. just this morning elegantly demonstrated, you're likely going to be very disappointed.
zero hedge. i just posted it a few more down.I heard this earlier, but cant find any articles.Louisiana has jumped on the Texas lawsuit.
getting fun now, people.
Progs get their ideas by deducing what is true from their ideology.Do you ever read the articles? Do any "Progressives" ever bother reading the attached articles?
" If the Justices decide to accept a case (grant a petition for certiorari), the case is placed on the docket. "It doesn’t mean the court has taken up the case. No devisions have been made.It being on the docket means there's most likely a hearing.
MaybeThis will just be another loss.
zero hedge. i just posted it a few more down.I heard this earlier, but cant find any articles.Louisiana has jumped on the Texas lawsuit.
getting fun now, people.
ThanksZerohedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zerowww.zerohedge.com
LOL, you guys have been claiming every new court case is going to be "the one" for a month now. A month later Trump and his allies have lost 50 cases. This will just be another loss.Its obvious that the biden voters posting here do not understand what is going onOne state suing another automatically has standing in the Supreme Court.
Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat theirIt is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
way to victory. The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.
And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
slitting their own wrists.
I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it. I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point. I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case. I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes loyalty to Trump or the Republican party by any justice.....rather than loyalty to the law and the Constitution.
As the court rejecting Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v Pennsylvania, et al. just this morning elegantly demonstrated, you're likely going to be very disappointed.
A "problem" with the reasoning that exists only in the mind of a leftist "I would behave this way, so I assume everyone would" dipshit bothers me not at all.
Hold your breath waiting for me to defend something that you only imagine I said.
this is what is so funny. the left is so hellbent on making up stupid interpretation of what you said and then attacking their known misintrepretations as if you said it.Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat theirIt is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
way to victory. The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.
And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
slitting their own wrists.
I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it. I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point. I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case. I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes loyalty to Trump or the Republican party by any justice.....rather than loyalty to the law and the Constitution.
As the court rejecting Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v Pennsylvania, et al. just this morning elegantly demonstrated, you're likely going to be very disappointed.
A "problem" with the reasoning that exists only in the mind of a leftist "I would behave this way, so I assume everyone would" dipshit bothers me not at all.
Hold your breath waiting for me to defend something that you only imagine I said.
the problem is you keep trying to tell people how they feel and you keep getting it wrong.Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat theirIt is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
way to victory. The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.
And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
slitting their own wrists.
I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it. I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point. I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case. I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes loyalty to Trump or the Republican party by any justice.....rather than loyalty to the law and the Constitution.
As the court rejecting Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v Pennsylvania, et al. just this morning elegantly demonstrated, you're likely going to be very disappointed.
Michigan and Georgia, two of the culprits, are claiming they are innocent of all charges.Officials in Georgia — where Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger recertified the state's election results again Monday after a recount — were quick to dismiss Paxton's allegations, as were leaders in the other three states named in the lawsuit.
"The allegations in the lawsuit are false and irresponsible," Georgia's deputy secretary of state, Jordan Fuchs, said in a statement Tuesday. "Texas alleges that there are 80,000 forged signatures on absentee ballots in Georgia, but they don’t bring forward a single person who this happened to. That’s because it didn’t happen."
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel dismissed Paxton's suit as "a publicity stunt, not a serious legal pleading."
"Mr. Paxton’s actions are beneath the dignity of the office of Attorney General and the people of the great state of Texas," she said
:watermark(cdn.texastribune.org/media/watermarks/2020.png,-0,30,0)/static.texastribune.org/media/files/f5fdb1dff4d6fd788cba66ebaefe08d0/Paxton_GOP_Convention_2018_BD_TT.jpg)
In new lawsuit, Texas contests election results in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" in the Electoral College. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, experts say.www.texastribune.org
You know how to settle this dispute? Get a court, like the US Supreme Court, to hear the case
and make a decision based on evidence.
Then we'll see if Raffensperger and Nessel have a legal leg to stand on.
Isn't that just what Texas wants too? Problem solved! Everyone goes home happy...except for Georgia and Michigan. And Pennsylvania, and Arizona. And Wisconsin.
I hope he does mind, indeed very much as we take our country back and shove him into deep dark depression and excessive misery.texas is just helping out a bit, hope you dont mind if we take our country back.
I heard this earlier, but cant find any articles.Louisiana has jumped on the Texas lawsuit.
getting fun now, people.
Louisiana has joined Texas and ................now Alabama has joined too!!!!!!
Wohoooooooooo Alabama!
Alabama now.I heard this earlier, but cant find any articles.Louisiana has jumped on the Texas lawsuit.
getting fun now, people.
this is one article, there are more
Breaking — Louisiana AND Alabama join Texas case before Supreme Court…
Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota and Lousiana… Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry issued the following st…www.citizenfreepress.com
" If the Justices decide to accept a case (grant a petition for certiorari), the case is placed on the docket. "It doesn’t mean the court has taken up the case. No devisions have been made.It being on the docket means there's most likely a hearing.
Supreme Court Procedures
Background Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court of the United States. Currently, there are nine Justices on the Court. Before taking office, each Justice must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Justices hold office during good behavior...www.uscourts.gov
Okay, thanks much. Appreciated." If the Justices decide to accept a case (grant a petition for certiorari), the case is placed on the docket. "It doesn’t mean the court has taken up the case. No devisions have been made.It being on the docket means there's most likely a hearing.
Supreme Court Procedures
Background Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court of the United States. Currently, there are nine Justices on the Court. Before taking office, each Justice must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Justices hold office during good behavior...
Its also placed on the docket when the it a writ ISN'T granted.
As demonstrated by Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v. Pennsylvania, et al., which was placed on the docket on December 3rd....
View attachment 426724
And had cert denied this morning.
It being placed on the docket merely means that the case is being discussed by the justices. Not that cert has been granted, not that the plaintiff has standing, not that the case has any merit. Merely that at least one justice has a question.
the problem is you keep trying to tell people how they feel and you keep getting it wrong.Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat theirIt is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
way to victory. The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.
And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
slitting their own wrists.
I think we have the votes necessary at this point to get the Supreme Court to hear it. I expected back during Barrett's confirmation hearing that the USSC was going to get dragged into the election at some point. I consider John Roberts to have a spine of spaghetti, and basically useless, but I'd be willing to bet money on Thomas, Alito, and Barrett agreeing to hear the case. I don't know about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes loyalty to Trump or the Republican party by any justice.....rather than loyalty to the law and the Constitution.
As the court rejecting Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Applicants v Pennsylvania, et al. just this morning elegantly demonstrated, you're likely going to be very disappointed.
cute. annoying as fuck, but cute.
Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.
People calling it fraud are way off base.
Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?
After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?
I do not think so.
And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?
Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?
There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.
Voters Constitutional rights were violated. That is the issue. All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction. That did not happen.
This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights. This should not be about team politics.
No it should not.
And every candidate has a right to redress through the courts, through recounts etc.
When court after court has dismissed cases for lack of evidence...when the lead attorney himself has to claim it's not fraud in order to avoid lying to the judge, when election officials on your own team say there is no evidence of fraud, when the DoJ fails to find fraud...then it's time to move on and accept the election as valid or...
make it about team politics and attempt to overturn a legitimate election and have partisan legislatures install the candidate who lost.
That invokes a greater crisis then your fraudulent one.
Or give up and let possible fraud win the day.
I know they won't win this fight, this is just the beginning.
Court orders for all election materials in the States in question. Court orders for all election hardware and software. Court orders to produce lists of all election workers in the disputed areas.
What fraud?
There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'.
Texas is saying the States in question violated the rules. This led to the increased chance of fraud.
There is no hard evidence YET, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence you ignore. You act like the people who did it wouldn't try to hide it.
