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

[Dragonlady]

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.

No, the vote was 9-0. The ruling was unsigned, which means it was unanimous.

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

The source was a website which routinely publishes "fake news". Their claims that a Supreme Court clerk told them this information, has no back up or confirmation.

 

[Donald H]

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...

Trump's side shouldn't stop short with just eliminating Roberts. The entire Scotus has betrayed Trump by not giving him some remedy.
but eventually Trump runs out of friends who are willing to corrupt themselves for his cause.

More important is your method you propose to eliminate Roberts?

Does your flawed Constitution speak up on how to eliminate a Chief Justice of the Scotus?

 

[Donald H]

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.

No, the vote was 9-0. The ruling was unsigned, which means it was unanimous.

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

The source was a website which routinely publishes "fake news". Their claims that a Supreme Court clerk told them this information, has no back up or confirmation.

There were two dissenting opinions without remedy, and they were meant to appease or to throw some crumbs at the Trump side.

The issue was swept under the carpet, plain and simple!

 

[Donald H]

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

It is what it is and the Scotus has failed your country. All that can be said in their defense is that they handled the ruling in the best way possible.
I would also just suggest that no 'clowns' were involved. Both sides have a legitimate case to be revisited at a later date.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It wouldn't surprise me. He did rewrite obamacare so it would be consitutional instead of sending it back to congress.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

I've no doubt its true. Thomas ought to rat him out and the other conservatives all go on strike together holding up the court until he resigns.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

Yes they said they would have heard the case but they also said that they would have denied trump relief.

So those two judges said yes to hearing the case but NO to what trump wanted and had to say.

If you want to believe rumors from social media go for it.

Me, I will believe what is actually written in the court documents.

Have fun in your delusions.

LOSER.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

There was no dissent.

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.

No, the vote was 9-0. The ruling was unsigned, which means it was unanimous.

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

The source was a website which routinely publishes "fake news". Their claims that a Supreme Court clerk told them this information, has no back up or confirmation.

There were two dissenting opinions without remedy, and they were meant to appease or to throw some crumbs at the Trump side.

The issue was swept under the carpet, plain and simple!

I heard it was those two who voted to hear the summaries. None of them voted for the case to proceed.

 

[Donald H]

I heard it was those two who voted to hear the summaries. None of them voted for the case to proceed.

I would suggest that hearing through the walls is just another attempt by the Trump lowlife of more spamming of the facts.

And I also suspect that the two dissenters could have been a mutual arrangement that the entire court agreed was necessary in the circumstances.

It's done now but it's left in a stalemate condition that won't be ignored for a long time. It's really the only legitimate issue the Trumpers have to pursue until hell freezes over.

Can you at least agree that it's legitimate?

 

[L.K.Eder]

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.

well. extrapolating from the crap you twats regularly post with the header CONFIRMED, an unconfirmed report will surely be worth reading. lol.

in reality, the texas suit was a shit show that was predictably kicked back into the sewer.

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

I have said all along that Roberts was a coward and that he needed to believe that the righteous indignation of 75 million victims of theft were going to cause more damage than a few Antifa fags and some algorithms for him to do the right thing.

 

[JLW]

Pacific Pundit is a source for RWNJs only. They are so bad that they are nearly off the scale as propagators of lies and false information.

 

[BlindBoo]

I heard it was those two who voted to hear the summaries. None of them voted for the case to proceed.

I would suggest that hearing through the walls is just another attempt by the Trump lowlife of more spamming of the facts.

And I also suspect that the two dissenters could have been a mutual arrangement that the entire court agreed was necessary in the circumstances.

It's done now but it's left in a stalemate condition that won't be ignored for a long time. It's really the only legitimate issue the Trumpers have to pursue until hell freezes over.

Can you at least agree that it's legitimate?

I don't think Texas had a legitimate case.

 

[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.

There was no dissent.

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.

No, the vote was 9-0. The ruling was unsigned, which means it was unanimous.

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

The source was a website which routinely publishes "fake news". Their claims that a Supreme Court clerk told them this information, has no back up or confirmation.

There were two dissenting opinions without remedy, and they were meant to appease or to throw some crumbs at the Trump side.

The issue was swept under the carpet, plain and simple!

I heard it was those two who voted to hear the summaries. None of them voted for the case to proceed.

Actually Alito and Thomas did although it was to be "without remedy" which meant the court would
not itself reverse the election though it might throw it back to the states to work things out.

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

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!

The remedy was problematic for sure.

 

[bodecea]

Has anyone been able to explain yet how they could be heard yelling thru the wall in Justice Chambers when they were all at home, video meeting?

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

How interesting?

 

[Billiejeens]

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...

Trump's side shouldn't stop short with just eliminating Roberts. The entire Scotus has betrayed Trump by not giving him some remedy.
but eventually Trump runs out of friends who are willing to corrupt themselves for his cause.

More important is your method you propose to eliminate Roberts?

Does your flawed Constitution speak up on how to eliminate a Chief Justice of the Scotus?

The Documentary - The Pelican Brief

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

It is what it is and the Scotus has failed your country. All that can be said in their defense is that they handled the ruling in the best way possible.
I would also just suggest that no 'clowns' were involved. Both sides have a legitimate case to be revisited at a later date.

Sure. Fucking over the 73+ millions that were disenfranchised and robbed of their constitutional right to a fair election is no big deal. Oh, well...as long as the people who stole the election get their way.

Did you say you were Canadian?

 

[L.K.Eder]

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...

Trump's side shouldn't stop short with just eliminating Roberts. The entire Scotus has betrayed Trump by not giving him some remedy.
but eventually Trump runs out of friends who are willing to corrupt themselves for his cause.

More important is your method you propose to eliminate Roberts?

Does your flawed Constitution speak up on how to eliminate a Chief Justice of the Scotus?

The Documentary - The Pelican Brief

^ advocates assassinating at least two justices. nice.