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

[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

^ advocates assassinating at least two justices. nice.

Thank you.

 

[Agit8r]

John Roberts has a lifetime appointment, and a legacy to contend with. To say nothing of him being ideologically closer to John Kasich than to any trumpian.

But these factors played less of a role than his judicial philosophy of denying access to the courts for any cases he deems unworthy. It is an attribute that libs and progressives have criticized at length in the past

 

[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.

Thank you.

you are welcome, tossface.you would have to enact your "plan" to murder two SCOTUS judges fast. your turd of a president will be out come January 20, and after that, President Biden will be in charge of nominating replacement judges.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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

Well that's not actually true but when have you ever let the truth
stop your nonstop barrage of agitprop bullshit?
The people who count understand.

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

Any thing that doesn't further the lying, cheating and stealing is a "shit show" to you.
My wish is that you wind up in a Chinese or North Korean hospital this Christmas.

 

[L.K.Eder]

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

Well that's not actually true but when have you ever let the truth
stop your nonstop barrage of agitprop bullshit?
The people who count understand.

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

Any thing that doesn't further the lying, cheating and stealing is a "shit show" to you.
My wish is that you wind up in a Chinese or North Korean hospital this Christmas.

do you need a bib, or a pacifier? you are whining constantly since early November. are you tired of WINNING?

 

[Flash]

This is a great example of why we can't rely on the government to protect our Liberties. We can't depend upon the Legislative branch, the Executive branch and sure as hell not the Judicial branch.

Our Founding Fathers knew this and that is why we have the Second Amendment.

 

[ReinyDays]

Texas cast all 38 of her EV's for Trump ... there's nothing in PA law to prevent this ... thus, Texas was not harmed by PA election law ...

If you want to cast a wider net, just remember, that will allow California to impose her carbon emission laws on all of you ...

 

[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.

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.

I stand corrected.

 

[BlindBoo]

This is a great example of why we can't rely on the government to protect our Liberties. We can't depend upon the Legislative branch, the Executive branch and sure as hell not the Judicial branch.

Our Founding Fathers knew this and that is why we have the Second Amendment.

No it isn't.

 

[Rambunctious]

 

[Donald H]

Pity for Roberts for having to deal with such a dysfunctional mess. On the bright side, he can be the chief justice that has the opportunity of rectifying the problem on the issue that the Constition ignored!

When judges have to put a phony face forward in order to be chosen to the Scotus, they are smart enough to understand that it's just for show that is necessary to appease America's corrupt politicians.
That is the explanation for why they eventually turn out to be quite rational and find it necessary to betray the the president that put them there. Even Trump's two have turned their backs on Trump out of judicial necessity of remaining at least credible.

Exceptions would be on the abortion issue and the gun issue but that's just America. The rest of the civilized world has moved on long ago.

Get well soon!

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

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.

Actually there's a very simple remedy. If there was enough evidence Pennsylvania unconstitutionally changed election laws, which they did, use the totals tallied at midnight on election night.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

Sure you did.

 

[TheParser]

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.

Anyone, including this humble nobody, knows that if the Supreme Court did anything to overturn the presumed election of the Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr., this nation would be plunged into the worst violence since the Civil War.

The Court DOES pay attention to the zeitgeist of the nation.

When the Court at the turn of the 20th century approved of racial segregation, it was listening to the zeitgeist. Then in the 1950s, when it outlawed school segregation, it again listened to the zeitgeist.

 

[d0gbreath]

It's cool to take something from your own mind, that you know could've happened that way, and look stupid throwing it out as an unconfirmed report.

Ima try this.

The Supremes aren't scared of the left, nor of the right. They don't scare easily.

 

[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.

Sure you did.

No it's true. Everybody is going to know it, very soon too. They were laughing and cutting up all afternoon. I heard old Kanvaughty tried to get Judge Amy to drink some beer with him! He likes beer.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

Roberts is one of the democrats "faves" if you know what i mean

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

There was no dissent.

Thomas and Alito. If you are going to lie at least make your lie plausible.

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

Still wrong. Alito and Thomas voted to hear the case. Stop being such a barnacle on the ass of truth.

 

[jackflash]

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.

Another Deep State stooge.

 

[L.K.Eder]

There was no dissent.

Thomas and Alito. If you are going to lie at least make your lie plausible.

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

Still wrong. Alito and Thomas voted to hear the case. Stop being such a barnacle on the ass of truth.

they voted to let them file.