7253
Comments (400)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
340
deleted 340 points ago +343 / -3
176
deleted 176 points ago +180 / -4
107
WalkedAway2018 107 points ago +108 / -1

Tbh, we aren't sure if Roberts identifies as a fella or not.

69
deleted 69 points ago +69 / -0
24
TheG00CH 24 points ago +26 / -2

he was also caught on the lolita express thats why he constantly sides with the democrats...they are holding that info and him hostage...he is a turncoat now

18
Hairy_Mouse 18 points ago +18 / -0

Actually, Roberts was the one who assigned all the conservative justices to the circuit courts in all the key states we need... which really surprised me.

2
BigleaguendTouchee 2 points ago +2 / -0

IT’S MAAM SOYBOI!

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2
18
FliesTheFlag 18 points ago +18 / -0

Roberts gave us ObungoCare, fuck him, hes a Rino.

9
deleted 9 points ago +10 / -1
3
WarTurtle 3 points ago +3 / -0

Lets not make any assumptions either, wouldn't want to wind up in prison.

2
RangerGently 2 points ago +2 / -0

Figures

1
PARTY-OF-CONSENT 1 point ago +1 / -0

NOT! How do you like the idea of 5 justices for a while?

13
Canlog96 13 points ago +13 / -0

We could always do like we did with “guys” and consider it technically gender neutral

6
Dudemanfoo 6 points ago +7 / -1

Some of those fellas look like donkeys...

5
ChinaVirusBigly 5 points ago +5 / -0

I thought there was some lady Obama appointed too

6
heightnoise 6 points ago +6 / -0

There is, Justice Sotomayor. This guy just posted without researching for upvotes is all.

2
PARTY-OF-CONSENT 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not a lady. A "wise latina" that "rips conservative colleagues over covid-19" REVOKE YOUR CONSENT!! Revoke HER.

1
Ogcarvattack 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sotomayor has more lip hair than Burt Reynolds.

5
solomonwiebe 5 points ago +5 / -0

It's fellete you bigot.

2
Ogcarvattack 2 points ago +2 / -0

its fellate you prude.

117
TheDynamis 117 points ago +117 / -0

This is the Trump strategy. It has probably been the strategy since COVID happened. He knew the Dems would try and abuse their power, as mail-in ballots are considerably easier to defraud. Get everything in place, tell every American to vote in person because mail-in voting isn't secure, then absolutely invalidate EVERY LAST MAIL IN BALLOT and say "I told you so!"

Why are the Dems against the Constitution so much? It's going to bite them in the ass hard, here.

61
congruent 61 points ago +63 / -2

Only downside is, Left/Media will claim "muh disenfranchised voters".

And voters will be being disenfranchised. In a perfectly legal way.

However, this might be an "out" and a "deal".

As in, Trump agrees, no one goes to prison. Instead this is the perpetrators "out" the apparently legal avenue how we win. And I (Trump) get to pass my entire 2nd term agenda.

You can scream and shout all you want. You can special council. And investigate. But when it comes to congress, it gets passed (Like the USMCA).

63
CrankHandler1991 63 points ago +63 / -0

Honestly I'd be one disenfranchised Pede if no one goes to prison. Or if the only ones going to prison are the insignificant commie foot soldiers.

I'll be very unhappy if the administration allows the swamp the chance to keep swamping after this.

48
MGP911 48 points ago +48 / -0

I don’t even want prison time. I want them hung in time square on the 4th of July.

28
diversityisghey 28 points ago +29 / -1

This is treasonous behavior and must be met with trial and hangings. These people cannot be allowed to infect our system any longer. We can only exist as a country with the rule of law enforced.

24
Tucso 24 points ago +26 / -2

Military tribunals

31
TheDynamis 31 points ago +31 / -0

It would be the Democrat's fault, however, for pushing through unconstitutional laws in the first place, then telling everyone to follow them.

22
ShiterallyLaking 22 points ago +22 / -0

Can't really be disenfranchised if you're dead or a piece of paper.

18
day221 18 points ago +18 / -0

The point of not allowing mass mail in ballots is that it is insecure and prone to problems. In other words, mail in voting causes legitimate voters to be disenfranchised. The election was run so poorly that no matter what judges do there will be massive disenfranchisement. The remedy for this is to have the representatives vote in the electors. Because without a valid election, that is the closest you can get to the will of the people.

17
Unapologetic 17 points ago +17 / -0

Their 'disenfranchised voters' are just paper, in some part.

17
InTheKnow 17 points ago +17 / -0

Obama outlined it in his farewell address. He said people give the power to the constitution, which is wrong. He basically said, get rid of the desire, and it goes away. He wanted to get rid of that document in the worse possible way.

9
Italians_Invented_2A 9 points ago +9 / -0

He said people give the power to the constitution

The left believes the 51% of the population is entitled to do whatever they want.

In contrast, we believe in the human rights of the minority.

12
Axiom502 12 points ago +12 / -0

Would be glorious if all mail in ballots were invalidated swept every state hahahahaha

3
PARTY-OF-CONSENT 3 points ago +3 / -0

Will be from now on. Problem now is some may be LEGAL BALLOTS. They want to count all legal ballots. State blew up election, separated signatures, kept out observers, mixed naked ballots. Can remove counterfeit one-mark ballots to determine President but rest are do-over - - unless Amazon server in Germany has original un-massaged tallies and can be unwound -

5
donaldismydad 5 points ago +5 / -0

i believe the demoncrats were well aware their attempted election fraud/theft would not stand up in the Supreme Court; they also likely knew President Trump was unbeatable for reeeeeeelection, so their TDS compelled them to take a giant heaping donkey/rino dump on this election, just to spite and taint DJT45's remaining 4 yrs in office, imho.

5
Butter_and_Meatloaf 5 points ago +5 / -0

And this would also be why he told his supporters to vote in person, to further separate his votes from the fraudulent votes.

2
PARTY-OF-CONSENT 2 points ago +3 / -1

But then at polls (CA) they made us use felt-tip pens which reject at machines - hand inspected. Biden votes get counted. Trump votes stay rejected, removed from recounts too. This and every machine with software --> redo everywhere.

39
DickinpantsMAGA 39 points ago +43 / -4

Dems are literally shitting themselves right now. Man the salt mines!!!

25
RiffFantastic 25 points ago +28 / -3

Are they? I haven’t seen that, but I’d like to.

14
GrayGhost 14 points ago +17 / -3

You haven't seen it? Someone's coming to get you out here to see it, hold on. Kevin, get - go get the car warmed up. We're going - no, we need to get a crowd. There are shitty Democrat pants hanging from lamp posts, it's a bonanza. They're shitting all over.

25
RiffFantastic 25 points ago +27 / -2

Nope. They seem unusually confident every time I turn on the radio or tv. I don’t know what to believe anymore, but I never count President Trump out.

14
deleted 14 points ago +14 / -0
5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
2
EyesInTheHills 2 points ago +2 / -0

Drive through San Francisco sometime.

-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2
11
Itype33 11 points ago +11 / -0

Would this even go to the SCOTUS? It's a state constitutional challenge.

8
Hairy_Mouse 8 points ago +9 / -1

Doesn't have to I guess, but likely will because all the lower judges are faggots who can't do their jobs.

3
Itype33 3 points ago +7 / -4

Ya, but I don't think it can. This is a question of state law, the state supreme court is the highest court for those matters.

6
jdtiger 6 points ago +7 / -1

A state supreme court ruling can be appealed to SCOTUS

Edit: to add a source

4
Thekraken 4 points ago +4 / -0

they didn’t follow the process to make it legal why wouldn’t it’s be appealed to the sc if state shoots it down. It’s a perfectly legitimate argument to drop all mail in votes

3
crypticreptile 3 points ago +4 / -1

States rights are great but national elections are a matter of national security.

7
Taupkek 7 points ago +8 / -1

Yes, it could and probably will go to SCOTUS. The issue is twofold. Who has the right to make and change the laws governing Presidential elections, and the severability of the sections of the law. The first is clearly a Constitutional issue, as it clearly states that ONLY the state legislature can make or change election law. But in PA the Gov, SOS and court made changes. The VBM law, however, was quite clear that ANY changes made to ANY part of the law nullified the whole law. By changing the law, which was written to say that only those votes received by 8pm Tuesday 11/3 could be counted, to allowing ballots mailed by the 3rd and received days later, the law became null and void, and literally every single mail-in ballot rendered invalid.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/why-trump-will-triumph-pa-litigation

2
Itype33 2 points ago +5 / -3

You're not wrong, but you're commenting on a different case. This case argues that act 77 passed last year needed to be a constitutional amendment. The fuckery pulled by the SOS is separate.

1
Hairy_Mouse 1 point ago +1 / -0

So what the status in THAT case, then? Is that in the one Rudy just appealed?

2
PARTY-OF-CONSENT 2 points ago +2 / -0

PA all moot with new case. Requirement for absentee eligibility in state constitution. Yes Legislature passed 77 to change absentee to no reason but they did not amend constitution so yes ALL mass mail ballots (including counterfeits) excluded. Trump won by 800K votes. Those that followed all old rules should get counted. 2016 the number of these was a couple of thousand. If there are any real absentees, they may not get counted, yes but they know who they are and they can do replacement ballots. Yes that is a good remedy. But do they still have vote flipping machines working on in-person ballots?

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
2
Itype33 2 points ago +2 / -0

This isn't a federal law, this is a case arguing that a state law needed to be a constitutional amendment.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
0
Italians_Invented_2A 0 points ago +1 / -1

I think the case is that the state didn't follow the federal Constitution because they didn't respect the state legislature being in charge of deciding how to do the state elections.

1
PARTY-OF-CONSENT 1 point ago +1 / -0

Right. Hard to argue when constitution says one thing and you do another. But "liberal judges" are illiterate when reading docs that have "Con...." at top.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0