Unconfirmed report: John Roberts killed Texas voter fraud lawsuit he worried about “rioting”

[bripat9643]

Justices Thomas and Alito were both in favor of hearing that case

Misleading bs. Those two favor hearing ANY case involving state vs. state.

How is it BS then?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Misleading bs. Those two favor hearing ANY case involving state vs. state.

That's because the Supreme Court is the historically correct place to settle state vs. state disputes.
It's the only place that is proper. That's the history of this nation and state v state disputes.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

wow. You will drink any piss handed to you, eh?

A witch like you only thinks the truth is "piss". Probably because the truth seems so foul to you.
Run along, fool.

 

[Donald H]

There's already a good explanation for why the Scotus had to decide the way they did. There was no remedy! Periof!

But of course the 'no standing' excuse was bullshit, as you put it. But in reality there were two dissenting opinions, which almost certainly indicates that the outcome had to be suggestive of future revisiting of the question. It's pretty elementary logic suggesting that Texas would have standing on issues of malfeasance of other states when it would have a direct negative influence on Texas.

Bearing all that in mind, it's caused your supreme court to sweep a real issue under the carpet, all because the US Constitution had no way of dealing with the question.

The US Constitution is fatally flawed and will remain so until the issue is addressed.

And of more importance, the world looks on and sees the failure of the system!

Actually the Supreme Court had every right to return to the legislator's Gang of Four states in question
a remedy coming from the states themselves.

I wouldn't suggest that the Scotus didn't have a right, regardless of what particular right you're suggesting. The fact of the matter is that there was no remedy for the situation that exists, other than a remedy that would have called for annulling the entire election results.

That leads you to the inevitable conclusion that the US Constitution fails to address the Texas grievance situation which was completely valid. The milk was spilt. The US Constitution needs an amendment at the very least.

Of necessity the US Constitution errs in not addressing the situation, but actually mentions upholding states' rights that can't be legally upheld in some situations.

 

[Beef_Supreme]

Concerned about rioting? LOL. He could scream that 1000 times and on precisely zero occassions would I believe him.

Apparently John Roberts doesn't give a damn about rioting from the disenfranchised right.
Who cares about that...right Mr. In-Justice?

When have we ever rioted?
So no, he isn’t concerned.
no one is.

 

[bodecea]

Unconfirmed report: John Roberts killed Texas voter fraud lawsuit because he worried about "rioting"

Unconfirmed report: John Roberts killed Texas voter fraud lawsuit because he worried about "rioting"

www.pacificpundit.com

This is an allegation but a credible one considering it's about John Roberts, a well known globalist sycophant.
Shouting was heard from the justices conference room and Roberts adamantly was against hearing the
Texas suit for fear of riots and it would likely return Donald Trump's stolen presidency to him.

Justices Thomas and Alito were both in favor of hearing that case. What is the rationale for not giving it a chance?

Texas and the twenty states that backed the suit, had no standing? How about a vital interest in not seeing the presidency stolen away in a bloodless coup making it an existential threat to America itself?
The no standing excuse is bullshit and people see right through such a blatant lie.

It's interesting that there were claims of shouting in the Justices' conference room when they were doing a video conference from their respective homes.

 

[Dragonlady]

Unconfirmed report: John Roberts killed Texas voter fraud lawsuit because he worried about "rioting"

Unconfirmed report: John Roberts killed Texas voter fraud lawsuit because he worried about "rioting"

www.pacificpundit.com

This is an allegation but a credible one considering it's about John Roberts, a well known globalist sycophant.
Shouting was heard from the justices conference room and Roberts adamantly was against hearing the
Texas suit for fear of riots and it would likely return Donald Trump's stolen presidency to him.

Justices Thomas and Alito were both in favor of hearing that case. What is the rationale for not giving it a chance?

Texas and the twenty states that backed the suit, had no standing? How about a vital interest in not seeing the presidency stolen away in a bloodless coup making it an existential threat to America itself?
The no standing excuse is bullshit and people see right through such a blatant lie.

And yet the vote was 9 - 0 to kill it. Not one of the Supreme Court Justices signed onto this steaming pile of crap.

Not surprisinginly, your source is "Questionable":

• Overall, we rate the Pacific Pundit a Questionable source based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of propaganda/conspiracy, use of poor sources, a complete lack of transparency and failed fact checks.

Pacific Pundit - Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Just another piece of fake news from the Trump Cult. If it wasn't for "Questionable Sources", you wouldn't have a source.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I wouldn't suggest that the Scotus didn't have a right, regardless of what particular right you're suggesting. The fact of the matter is that there was no remedy for the situation that exists, other than a remedy that would have called for annulling the entire election results.

That leads you to the inevitable conclusion that the US Constitution fails to address the Texas grievance situation which was completely valid. The milk was spilt. The US Constitution needs an amendment at the very least.

Of necessity the US Constitution errs in not addressing the situation, but actually mentions upholding states' rights that can't be legally upheld in some situations.

As I already pointed out sending the issue right back to the states in question for THEM to provide a remedy
is the only practical and proper remedy available.

Yes. The overall effect once Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin remedied the fraud (and possibly Arizona and Nevada) criminal actions of leftist actors would be to nullify the election and let the incumbent stay in office (assuming he actually won the real legal election).
What is your alternative? Let the crime stand when we could easily remedy it?

I'm sorry. My bottom line is to give the election to the person who legally and actually won it.
What is yours?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

It's interesting that there were claims of shouting in the Justices' conference room when they were doing a video conference from their respective homes.

Is that what Daily Kos or some other kook site told you to say?

 

[g5000]

wow. You will drink any piss handed to you, eh?

A witch like you only thinks the truth is "piss". Probably because the truth seems so foul to you.
Run along, fool.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

An anonymous unconfirmed report is "truth".

Priceless.

You people get dumber and drunker on piss with every passing day.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

And yet the vote was 9 - 0 to kill it. Not one of the Supreme Court Justices signed onto this steaming pile of crap.

Not surprisinginly, your source is "Questionable":

The vote was 7-2 with Alito and Thomas dissenting.
Go back to visiting with your Old Grandad.
You are calling the source, a Supreme Court clerk, 'questionable" based on what?

Just another piece of fake news from the Trump Cult. If it wasn't for "Questionable Sources", you wouldn't have a source.

So it seems to you.

 

[Rambunctious]

Roberts needs to be removed from the supreme court...fear is no excuse for not doing your duty...if it were we would never win one battle in combat....if the swamp can send good Americans to war they must be fearless in their duty at home and Roberts is a coward...he must go...

 

[Rambunctious]

So if we riot over income tax will the SCOTUS make income taxes illegal?....you bet your ass they wouldn't....

 

[Rambunctious]

Roberts is being blackmailed by someone...bet its the Kenyan...

 

[WEATHER53]

It is wise in looter lib land to tip toe around the criminals lest they become aroused

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Roberts needs to be removed from the supreme court...fear is no excuse for not doing your duty...if it were we would never win one battle in combat....if the swamp can send good Americans to war they must be fearless in their duty at home and Roberts is a coward...he must go...

A Bush globalist appointment of a globalist judge.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

An anonymous unconfirmed report is "truth".

Priceless.

You people get dumber and drunker on piss with every passing day.

Back to your cauldron and talking cats now.

 

[mdk]

Sure, why not? Clowns are already claiming the Chief Justice is compromised b/c he flown on Epstein's private jet or something.

 

[BlindBoo]

I heard it was them all laughing and arguing as to what was the funniest /stupidest part of at the Tejas filings.

A lot of people heard it too.

 

[Donald H]

Yes. The overall effect once Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin remedied the fraud (and possibly Arizona and Nevada) criminal actions of leftist actors would be to nullify the election and let the incumbent stay in office (assuming he actually won the real legal election).
What is your alternative? Let the crime stand when we could easily remedy it?

I can sympathize with your opinion but I can't sympathize with the remedy that you suggest. It's suggesting an impossible remedy at too late a date. However, I can also continue to sympathize with your side's pursuing a remedy too.
The mild was spilt when your Constitution was written, and with sympathy to your dilemma it was of necessity at the time to avoid addressing a situation which would inevitably call for addressing.

I'm sorry. My bottom line is to give the election to the person who legally and actually won it.
What is yours?

Of Course! I agree 100% and I agree that you have a case! I've said that repeatedly and so it should be clear to you that you don't have an argument with me.

Will the election be overturned? If the 4 states named annulled the election results then you would have solid proof of a miscarriage of justice. Maybe it boils down to a question on whether Trump is worth it?

Consider very carefully the cost of continuing to bark up Trump's tree.

In any event, seeing those 4 states taking real action to change the election results is the first step. Not Trump's ongoing crying about it!

It seems tome that nothing new is being raised by this topic?