this a a land use case and doesnt apply to election law. Obviously fraud should cancel any bad deal as a general principle but if you cited this case in any election lawsuit your case would get thrown out on a 12(b)(6) rule violation for failure to state a claim. Election law rulings and property law rulings dont mix.
His crackhead son gives away laptops filled with incriminating evidence. Do you really think it'll be that hard to find something that leads back to Sleepy Joe?
This is the winning argument to make from a logical standpoint. There is no acceptable amount of fraud in an election. Any amount of fraud ruins our understanding of the true results. We have such higher standards for food production than we do for voting. Imagine people not caring because only 0.02% of skittles are poisonous.
If we were to accept the results of a fraudulent election, it only makes sense to accept it if someone won despite all proven fraud working against them winning. Even in that case where it's clear who the valid winner is, the whole election is fairly fruitless still. The supreme court should stand by this ruling and actually move the US closer to a system of voting that has a high standard of integrity.
this a a land use case and doesnt apply to election law. Obviously fraud should cancel any bad deal as a general principle but if you cited this case in any election lawsuit your case would get thrown out on a 12(b)(6) rule violation for failure to state a claim. Election law rulings and property law rulings dont mix.
Exactly.
Bump.
Repeat post.
I would think the evidence is overwhelming, but how deep does the swamp run?!
ib4 Dems claim that Trump caused some "little" fraud to take it to the SCOTUS to steal the election.
Too much winning.
The Court throwing out all election results in contested states would mean the legislatures *must act.
I like it.
But proving it is another. How to tie the actual fraud to Biden?
It wouldnt be necessary to tie it to Biden directy, it is only necessary to demonstrate that the fraud occurred.
Yes this exactly!
His crackhead son gives away laptops filled with incriminating evidence. Do you really think it'll be that hard to find something that leads back to Sleepy Joe?
This is the winning argument to make from a logical standpoint. There is no acceptable amount of fraud in an election. Any amount of fraud ruins our understanding of the true results. We have such higher standards for food production than we do for voting. Imagine people not caring because only 0.02% of skittles are poisonous.
If we were to accept the results of a fraudulent election, it only makes sense to accept it if someone won despite all proven fraud working against them winning. Even in that case where it's clear who the valid winner is, the whole election is fairly fruitless still. The supreme court should stand by this ruling and actually move the US closer to a system of voting that has a high standard of integrity.