53
Comments (12)
sorted by:
13
MajorAppleHead 13 points ago +14 / -1

It’s not. It’s dismissive of real evidence and real issues. Alito won’t BS around.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
8
couranto 8 points ago +8 / -0

You answered your own question.

“ What he's essentially saying is that some areas of Pennsylvania chose to implement rules differently.”

Equal protection.

7
Drgreygoose02 7 points ago +7 / -0

District judges in a case of this magnitude are fekless. They won't do shit, it has to move up.

7
deleted 7 points ago +8 / -1
6
Grindelwald 6 points ago +7 / -1

The judge makes more accusations than Trump legal. Sounded like a personal opinion from the judge rather than an election law argument.

2
sak951 2 points ago +3 / -1

That's exactly my thoughts. No legal explanation as to why equal protection doesn't apply, it does. This was a Democrats opinion nothing else.

5
mrbear10mm 5 points ago +6 / -1

"Just because some counties decided to [ignore the law] and ignore a court order by a sitting Supreme Court Justice doesn't mean I can can disenfranchise all of those phony ballots"

5
Cowcutter 5 points ago +5 / -0

Not sound at all. Sounds like a judge who wants to be retired with the rest of the swamp

3
Cliffinati 3 points ago +3 / -0

Wether some counties chose to and some didn't is LITERALLY a equal protection violation

1
DLane1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Exactly! Separate but equal was unConstitional, separate & unequal is doubly so! Under the specious legal reasoning of this "judge", two counties interpreting the same state instruction in different ways, one that follows PA law that "curing" is illegal & another that "cured" anyway, the county that did curing was allowed because they "expanded rights". This would be like one county denying permits to criminals for firearms in accordance with State law, but another giving firearms to criminals because it "expands rights".