7575
Comments (373)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
35
KingOfChicag0 35 points ago +38 / -3

My understanding of the strategy, is that if we win in PA, it will create legal precedent that can be used in other states....GA, MI, WI.

21
deleted 21 points ago +23 / -2
12
scooterdog 12 points ago +12 / -0

Yes, the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Source: listening to Styxhexenhmer666 laying out the simple Constitutional case for this over at Rumble, and looking a few things up this AM as he doubled-down with the Sidney fireworks from yesterday being a classic Trump maneuver for 4D chess, take it for what you will...

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
4
deleted 4 points ago +5 / -1
3
ZeroDeltaTango 3 points ago +3 / -0

I thought the PA strategy hinged on the vast number of ballots that came in after the 8:00 deadline, that Alito nixed?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
ZeroDeltaTango 1 point ago +1 / -0

they didn't accept votes that came in after 8:00 (supposedly)

LOL sure

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
3
deleted 3 points ago +4 / -1
4
Wallypip3 4 points ago +4 / -0

Almost positive they were curing in Arizona

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
1
KingOfChicag0 1 point ago +2 / -1

I might be confusing the nature of the case, but one of the things I though they were going to argue in this case, was that PA changed the election law unconstitutionally (only state legislature can do that). GA had a similar situation and so did MI, I think.

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
2
StrangerThanFiction 2 points ago +2 / -0

A county clerk in a dem stronghold in WI changed the rules on ID requirements. According to the US Constitution only the state legislature had authority to do that and it created unequal treatment of ballots among different counties. There's more I'm sure, but that's off the top of my head.