SCotUS can hear state supreme court cases on appeal of constitutional questions, unless there is an independent and adequate state law ground for the state court ruling.
There doesn't appear to be one, as this ruling isn't rooted in the vagaries PA law.
Edit: simple answer, there's no ground for SCotUS not to hear the case, so it's almost certainly going to the Supreme Court. The only way it doesn't is if 6 justices say no.
Edit 2: for anyone thinking that there is no US Constitutional question, please read Bush v. Gore (or check the wikipedia for a quick overview). There are questions of Constitutional review concerning the state case, including but not limited to due process and Article 2 plenary power.
The constitution delegates the power to select electors to the state legislatures (which would include the voting process for that state). The PA legislature never approved the expanded mail-in voting that PA used for this election
The PA legislature did approve of it, but the law they passed was unconstitutional because the PA Constitution gives specific requirements for mail-in ballots.
theres 2 things re Act 77 that expanded mail-in ballots in PA from what I gather when listening to Bannon discussing this with Sean Parnell (the other plaintiff in this case):
The law (Act77) was passed with the goal of expanding the use of mail-in ballots but is unconstitutional because of specific requirements in the PA Constitution that are needed in order to change the conditions of use of mail-in ballots as the law was intent in doing.
After the law was passed, the PA governor and election officials went in just before the election and amended the law by going to the PA supreme court and basically took out safeguards put in the law (Act77) itself for accepting mail-in ballots. They went to the partisan PA supreme court and did not go through the legislature to do it. And that is also unconstitutional.
for both violation 1) and 2), SCOTUS can accept to hear the case. But especially in violation 2) as that is basic constitutional law 101 that affects every state : only the legislative branch can enact and amend laws, not the executive or judiciary branch as it has been done in PA.
That is my understanding of the situation . If I am wrong somewhere, dont hesitate to correct me.
Best concise explanation of the situation. I have only been researching legal concepts for a little over a year, and it is amazing how easy it is to poison the well of information because of how complex and often convoluted the whole thing can be.
The people need this kind of no nonsense breakdown in order to not be swayed by manufactured opinions.
Half the time it seems like the activists in the Judiciary dont grasp the underlying concepts.
Seems like a good time to get into constitutional law practice. Obviously job opportunities in that field are not being filled by our best and brightest for the most part. (Obvious exceptions being Amy Coney Barret, Linn Wood, Sydney Powell, Jenna Ellis, and Rudy Giuliani.)
This POS says this is an "effort to subvert the will of Pennsylvania voters." UNLESS YOU AUDIT THE VOTE IN THE FACE OF ALL THIS EVIDENCE OF FRAUD, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY IS!
Also, it's worth noting that the legislature had given the authority over voting in PA to the Secretary of State. They are in the process of rescinding this.
Tell them they knowingly certified fraud. A person without ulterior motives would clearly see that there is enough going on here to at least warrant a thorough investigation.
Isn’t this akin to the line item veto? One branch cannot give up their Constitutional duty to another branch, which is why Congress couldn’t give their budgetary authority to the President.
Yes, which leaves this lawsuit in the incredibly bizarre position of the plaintiffs suing to argue that their own actions were unconstitutional. The judge didn't seem too impressed.
But SCOTUS cannot hear a case based on the PA constitution. The PA Supreme Court is cucked.
Edit: I see a lot of people getting butthurt about this response. The US Supreme Court cannot rule on whether or not a PA law violates the PA constitution. There are other, ongoing cases regarding the Constitutional validity of the voting deadline changes (among other things), that Trump will almost certainly win.
They'd review if the provision violated federal constitutional provisions, like the 13 Amendment. They won't review if a state law violates a state constitution.
They can on the grounds that separation of powers clause was violated in this case.
PA77's modifications that removed the safeguards were done through PA Scotus by going around the legislature. In effect, Wolf made the State's court a new legislative body. Without the House and Senate unable to do their job does violate separation of powers clause, as well equal protection and dredges up other legal issues.
We literally had laws like that for decades in the U.S. and it was legal depending on state. There are multiple SCOTUS rulings that freed slaves that were brought from slave states into states that prohibited slavery. It took the 13th Amendment to get rid of slavery as an institution, and the 14th amendment to affirm that citizens have the same rights no matter what state they're in. But the 14th Amendment didn't give the federal government supremacy over the states in all matters.
One of the strengths of the U.S. is giving strong preference to local governance versus having all power centralized in Washington, D.C. (the swamp), I hate seeing people here in addition to the left asking for more central government.
Edit: Nevermind, this reply was in regards to the treatment of observers. The SCOTUS can probably hear this case on the basis on how Federal law allows the election of Federal elected officials.
PA cannot add any laws that would violate the Federal Constitution or Federal law. That's Supremacy Clause. (Article VI, Paragraph 2).
In this theoretical scenario, legalizing slavery is in contradiction to the Constitution, and includes Federal charges, they can still be charged under Federal laws and go to jail in a Federal jail, no matter what the law is in PA or under the PA constitution.
The only law that I'm aware of regarding observers of State Elections are part of the Voting Rights Act, which permits Federal observers in certain States and Counties.
It's clear that the PA election officials only adhered to the letter of the law, and not the spirit in regards to observers. Since it is politically advantageous of the PA Supreme Court to tell the GOP observers to get fucked, they did.
The whole reason why we have observers is to make sure there isn't any shitty behavior by election officials. Cheating in some fashion has been going on in this country for centuries by different political machines, where observers help prevent it. Cheating happened in 2020, that's why they kicked out the observers.
Be outraged over this.
Put in on your wishlist for a Federal Law to be put in place rights for observers. Hopefully for a Voting Rights Act of 2021 or 2023.
And it can also come back and bite them in the ass regarding SCOTUS cases regarding the fraud in this election, and be used as a reason for the PA legislature to send no electors, or electors for Trump.
The issue is does PA77 alone warrant a SCOTUS review...possibly not
However,
PA77's modifications and other shady issues where PA courts rewrote the law without input of the state's legislature does violate separation of powers. That is where SCOTUS can review and possibly order PA's SCOTUS to toss out the law by precedence set out by its own constitution.
SCOTUS can definitely hear state constitution issues if it believes other states or the federal Constitition is affected. In fact SCOTUS has overruled state constitutions that criminalized homosexuality because it violated federal law.
The legislature could argue that the governor changed the rules they agreed to.
Agreed, also these aren't state elections they are federal elections that are impacted (Presidential, house of representatives) so that also provides standing.
Those cases are probably based on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. I guess the GOP could argue that this constitutional amendment violates the rights of legal voters and is also a violation of equal protection under the law. I wonder if it'll be successful.
There was no amendment. They just went ahead and did it. Same with how the PA legislature handed over selection of electors in 1938 to the Sec. of State. Its all just a bunch of backhanded deals in PA.
I upvoted you because I think you should be able to ask about what you did, but I believe the SC could theoretically hear the case on the basis on the US public being impacted by the results in PA, thus making it a federal issue.
Fuck any SCOTUS justice if they rule against us or if they punt it back to state courts. Also, if they punt it back while they all 9 claim to be "anonymous" and don't make themselves known publically because they are too chickenshit then fuck all the conservative justices.
No it doesn’t. Idk why this low level shit is getting passed around so much. The state appoints electors, not the legislature, the legislature gets to choose the manner in which that happens. They chose to do it by popular vote and they had to direct that manner by nov 3, the date congress set for the election. Legislature does not get to change it after the fact, at least not untill unless scotus rules on the constitutional clauses stoping them.
The Legislature can decide the electors at the last minute if it so chooses and can absolutely go against popular vote. One good cause would be the discovery of massive fraud, but a more likely cause would be the discovery that the winning candidate was unfit for office (such as having secretly been born outside the U.S. or only being 30 years old).
Well, technically Trump got the popular vote, since a large margin of the Biden votes were fraudulent.
They claim they don't want to rule against the will of the people, but by refusing to appoint Trump electors, they are doing EXACTLY what they claim to be against...
Edit: sorry, my first sentence comes off as too combative. It should say, “we need them to introduce the proof of fraud in court, so the legislature can act on it.” I didn’t mean to dismiss the fraud that has been proven, just meant to say it is harder to act on when it hasn’t been demonstrated in court. I’m leaving original below.
But someone has to prove fraud somewhere that isn’t a YouTube video or Twitter thread so the legislature has something to act on.
I’m so pissed at these lawyers because they aren’t even trying. Look at the PA SC dismissal today. It says there was a failure to allege any fraud, then goes on to note that is exactly what Rudy did last week.
No one is talking about fraud in the courts! Of course the act of invalidating millions of ballots is going to be an extreme remedy if they were all cast according to the process as laid out. I’d be fucking pissed if I followed the rules and my ballot was thrown out because someone else decided they didn’t like the rules.
If they would enter evidence of fraud, the solution of invalidating votes is much easier to arrive at.
Technically, it wouldn't matter if they threw a legit ballot out. If you go by the REAL results, Trump won. So, the Biden ballots don't really matter. If a Trump vote gets thrown out in the process of removing some ballots to declare Trump the winner, it still doesn't matter, because Trump wins anyways.
Without the fraudulent ballots, Trump won. Whether 1 person voted for Biden or 1 million. It would still be the same outcome.
Your vote matter in DETERMINING the winner. The winner has already been determined, and it's Trump. Now that we have established that, the ballots no longer matter. It would be like throwing out the ballots a year after the election. Once you have a winner, they no longer matter.
The secretary of state changed the voting rules without legislative approval, which is illegal under the constitution because the legislature did not give the sos the power to do that
2 things when a court wants to allow unconstitutional laws. Many times courts rule that because an action on law hasn’t occurred then there is no basis for a hearing. Then if the action has occurred they say you should have asked prior to the unconstitutional act. Cant win. The court can have it both ways.
That's not how it works, the PA Constitution would have to have been amended according to the processes set forth for amendment by the PA Constitution. The government CAN NOT violate it and their Supreme Court isn't a body intended to enable exceptions or circumventions of the Constitution, but to enforce it dutifully.
This decision completely ignores the obvious violation of the PA Constitution - the justices even played themselves when they complained that the suit didn't make any claims of fraud... you know why it didn't? Because it's not a requirement... the law is unconstitutional and that's all there should be to it.
The remedy need not be the total invalidation of the vote, but this court viewed that as the only logical outcome - but giving the State an opportunity to re-vote, in person, is beyond the capacity of these people.
Legislature the other day said that that never went through them - Governor signed it immediately upon it hitting his desk. Then said any challenge would be immediately veto'd
Why did they try so hard to push this through without the legislature. very interesting.
Legislature started it, but governor signed it through after legislature gave up on it.
For it to be legal, it would have had to have been past through 2 legislative meetings, posted in 2 newspapers in every county in the state, AND voted upon by the people this general election.
There was no way to legally pass it before this election and they knew it.
This is literally a procedural constitutional lawsuit and the PA SC decided to just not hear the case based on shaky ground of not being filed in a timely manner.
They're elected to 21 year terms by statewide election. Philly controls the statewide offices, while the House and Senate are red due to the massive land area of the state.
That seems to create a new rule. It is permissible to violate the constitution, if you can do so without anyone contesting the violation within 180 days, after which time, the violation can become law.
Yeah, that's their explanation, and it's garbage. The idea that an unconstitutional law must be immediately challenged is asinine... there have been MANY laws that were stricken as unconstitutional after decades of being on the books.
It means yes, because it literally doesn't matter what any of these lower courts say.
If 4 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices say they will hear the case, it goes to the Supreme Court. Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are almost certainly going to allow it.
Dems will threaten his safety and demand he recuse himself for conflict of interest citing he would have a desire for revenge and could not rule with a clear head.
4 have to say yes, but unlike typical cases seeking Cert, the Court is aware of inevitability of these election challenges. They aren't going to delay on deciding whether or not to grant cert, so all justices will weigh in.
nigga why would 6 justices have to say no to hearing it for the court to hear it lmao? thats like asking a bitch if she tryna fuck and she say no so u think yes and try to fuck ??????
What I meant was, do they vote on not seeing a case, or do they vote on seeing a case. If the vote on not seeing it then it's 6 justices that have to say no, otherwise, it's 4 justices that have to say yes.
Given the PA supreme court is overwhelmingly democrat, they were definitely expecting it to get get thrown out, yes. Which means it now gets to go to the actual supreme court, where we hold the majority even if Roberts cucks, and that's the end of it. Supreme Court ruling is final.
No, SCOTUS would laugh and mock the PA State Supreme Court for its errant application of laches. After that, it will get interesting. The Court could go rather far with the opinion but they may remand with more limited instruction. We'll have to wait and see. No doubt SCOTUS has been expecting this as case to come their way for some time now.
Not the plan for it to be thrown out. That was just the expected outcome. So nothing to be worried about. It was always the expectation that the case would be appealed, including if the PA SC ruled in favor of the republicans.
This is politics. The point is to exhaust as many viable options within the time limit and create enough doubt to then legitimate the use of Article 2. They have the authority, but the fact is the voting populace aren't a bunch of dispassionate constitutional scholars.
So losing a pretty clear-cut case in a sate state Supreme Court is “going to plan?”
I don’t like the idea of always relying on the SCOTUS to be the backstop for everything, especially given how politicized it has become. Seems like having the states do the right thing would avoid a lot of headaches and potential risk.
Wouldn’t a better plan have bin to just win the case?
The PA SC was never going to do anything in trumps favor or make anything easy is the point hes making. As much as we all wouldve liked for this to be settled today it's not really surprising this dem heavy court found a way to kick it back
Did you not see the flimsy nonsense they rejected the case on?
Do you really think there was a snowball in hell chance of winning that case?
It is a stepping stone. That’s it. That’s all it ever could have been. The rejection is expected.
You may not like relying on the SC, but that is where we are at. You don’t like how it is politicized, but I don’t like how mortal kombat, my kid’s homework, and even my aquarium magazines, are politicized. Everything is politicized, now. It’s actually been that way for a while. In six months, when there’s pandemonium, as pissed off leftists burn down their own cities, are you going to like where we are at? I’m not, but if we win with this, the breakdown is inevitable. Actually, the breakdown is inevitable anyway.
The country is dysfunctional. The justice systems is dysfunctional. It’s never going to be like it was.
We can win this one, and postpone the reckoning another four years, at least. War will eventually be inevitable, though. There’s no avoiding that.
2024 is coming, as you have said, and these specific events aren’t going to change what is inevitable, but with four more years of GEOTUS, we can better prepare. That way, when things come to a head, we will have a greater advantage.
Yes, if the Courts fail to rectify this and continue to act in this illegitimate manner, the United States has dissolved and no longer exists as a legal legitimate entity.
Now, I’ve been in this pit a time or two. Here’s what helps. First, go watch some Bannon or Louder with Crowder. Now, get off the news and (if you must) only check top post on TDW once in the morning, once in the evening, preferably less. Next, get some fresh air, and hopefully some sunshine. Take some vitamin d3, anyhow. Plan and cook an nice meal for your family. Deck the halls and watch a Christmas movie together. You’ll feel better. You’ll hold the line and trust PDJT and his team to drive the train. 🇺🇸🙏❤️
If it’s as you say, the war begins.
There’s zero point in going there until we have to go there. Nothing is beneficial about calling the game before the last three outs.
Honestly, I'm predicting SCOTUS doesn't hear a single case, and anyone thinking the courts are going to save this Republic are mistaken.
It's good to have faith, but you must be realistic too. SCOTUS isn't going to overturn this, they aren't necessarily brave patriots willing to risk everything for America. Are enough of them willing to endure the death threat and constant attacks from the left? Seriously, how often have we seen anyone stand up for MAGA within the government systems or even the GOP? The fact is our systems and politicians are hopelessly corrupt and incompetent.
It all needs to be torn down and every single politicians finances investigated. When Americans realize 80% are bought and paid for by China, maybe enough people will rise up.
If Biden enters office, America will be a client state of China.
Here's the analysis: It wouldn't make sense, from a constitutional perspective, for SCOTUS to take this case. If the situation were reversed, we know a left leaning SCOTUS would take the case anyway and create law out of thin air for their own benefit, but we already know "conservative" justices don't operate that way, so it's likely they'll decline to hear the case because it's a state's rights matter.
It'll be okay, brother. Like Rudy said, these areas are Democrat-ran and Democrat-controlled. Their police are liberal hacks, their sheriff's are libeal hacks, and their local justice systems are liberal hacks. Within every echelon of state government, it's nut-to-butt with Biden dick-riding losers,
No matter how well Trump does in the lower courts, the presidential election MUST end in the highest court. Until that final battle comes, don't let these godless liberal faggots fuck up your day. We will have the last laugh and it will be top five MOST significant elections in our country's history.
Be proud that you and I are around to spread the good word of Kekistan!!
stop it with this shit, linguistics has long established that in the US it is OK to say "could care less", it's a regional idiom / phrase and you guys just look like absolute dumbasses arguing about it. The British dont say it like that and take offense for some reason.
Nope it doesn't even work as sarcastic since that would be "wow, they care so much".
"They could care less" means they care somewhat and so you're effectively saying that it's SOMEWHAT important to them which is a super lukewarm statement to make and quite pathetic.
By its nature sarcasm has to mean the opposite of what you intend to mean. By going for the middleground with what essentially means "somewhat interested", the sarcastic effect is nullified.
Couldn't care less vs could care less is the same argument as best of the worst vs worst of the best. It's highly subjective to interpretation.
If you think that the best and worst are distinct classes, it makes sense to be the worst of the best. Better to be the bottom of the top 10%, than the top of the bottom 10%. If you instead think that best and worst are a unified class that overlaps, with the worst being the "least best" and the best being the "least worst", then you should strive to be the best of the worst, or somewhere in the top 50%.
Paradigm matters. Would you rather be the richest vagrant on the streets or the poorest multi-billionaire in D.C, vs do you want to be a wealthy scrub or a poverty-ridden trust fund baby, are two very different questions to consider before answering "best of the worst or vice versa?"
Likewise, if you think that caring is a spectrum (with negative care being loathing and antipathy, for example), then couldn't care less makes no sense -- you can ALWAYS despise something more than you currently do. On the flipside, if you think that caring is a real value, then could care less makes no sense -- either you care the bare minimum of none or you don't, there is no caring less than not caring.
In mathematical terms, if I ask you on a scale of 0-10 how much you care, and you answer 0, then you couldn't care less. If I ask you on a scale of -∞ to ∞ how much you care, and you answer -10 zillion gajillion babillon, sheesh, you sure as shit don't care in the slightest, but... you know, you could care less.
However, while some people say 'could care less' and others say 'couldn't care less,' both groups are ultimately just saying 'I don't care' and EVERYFUCKINGBODY KNOWS THAT, so it's a moot point that only pedants and assholes argue about.
The world doesn't grind to a halt when I ask for an Allen wrench and you hand me a hex key.
Even that's weak sauce, what they would want to say would be more like "I can't believe I could care even less than I already do, but you've proven me wrong".
A better usage is when you someone doesn't expect you to be that interested in something, and you say, "Hmmmm, I could care less about this" which means you're actually somewhat (and surprisingly) interested and trying to state that in a sorta clever way.
It means there's some unknown level of caring left. The meaning itself "I could care less", means that the person's intent is to care even less than they already do, or not, but the implication is that they don't really care all that much.
How is it so hard to understand this simple concept? How are this many people so uptight about such a loosely-used idiom?
'Could care less' makes 0 grammatical sense. That means that you could care less about it, meaning that you care more about it than you could do. Makes no sense at all. The emphasis is on 'could not care less' I.e. you could not care less than what you care about that
You have to admit, the left loves to correct grammar. I have no idea why everyone just attacked me. Did you not understand my apparent, “simpleton”, statement.
Someone just helped you sound smarter. It was free advice from an anonymous person on the internet that caused you zero personal embarrassment.
The way you said it was incorrect, even if lots of other people do the same. Don’t be a defensive snowflake. Understand the merits of the point being made (which is absolutely grammatically correct in this case) and embrace them.
Could care less knows no specific areas in America, it sounds stupid whenever anyone says it...despite where they're from. As long as you understand that going forward.
I am a bit confused since I thought I heard the "PA supreme court tossed the case" story a few days ago, so I am getting a bit of Deja Vu unless I am mistaken.
That's not how it should be viewed.... saying "It sucks" is not correct IMO... Getting the entire Election voided, would allow the GOP Controlled state legislature select electors.. we know, lots of RINOs, however... Having SCOTUS scrap or descredit the entire Pennsylvania Election (without "picking a winner"), goes a long way to helping a weak RINO filled Legislature (who are all answering to 85% MAGA voters), to justify choosing trump, over Biden.. because they can't say 'oh well Biden won, look at the votes".. no the votes are invalid, doesn't matter. They were illegal. So, its like giving cucked Republicans (under pressure from their constituents) the ammo to vote Trump, otherwise, they are literally electing Biden for no reason (because the vote tallies don't exist anymore). Its likely the best case and path we have.
did we? i've been saying it would for days and all i got was called a doomer. this place is completely delusional. now all of a sudden when cases are being thrown out left and right and there's almost or actually no path left, is everyone going to pretend that they 'always knew'? weird
They claim that by bringing down morale and shitting on everything, they are somehow helping.
Pessimism and “being realistic” in the way they mean it, helps nothing.
There is no award for “I told you so.” Defeatism just makes a man look like a coward, even if the person proves correct. In this instance, the blackpilling is unwarranted. This is still ongoing.
No one expected a Democrat-dominated court to give a just ruling.
This. Barrett has proven herself to be able to follow constitutional law rather than fall to ‘Muh pandemic greater good’ BS. This is a great sign of what’s to come for us if she’s willing to take the less “popular” (according to libs) path.
The GOP legislature started Act 77 as a Constitutional amendment, since it would take for them to pass it again in a year, put it in 2 newspapers in each county, and then pass it by popular vote, it couldn't be ratified in time. So it was abandoned as an amendment, and was just signed into law by the governor.
Which could be dismissed for "lack of standing" since they weren't harmed by the law yet. Also check to see if the law was passed properly. I've seen info that it wasn't and was signed by the gov into law.
This is why the courts are fucked. Same thing almost happened at SCOTUS recently. Because a legal loophole was exploited it's okay (is what the dissenting faggots including Roberts said).
Isn't it actually a good thing? Time is of the essence, so the faster things get to the top court the better. Dicking around in the lower courts is a waste of time no matter what they rule.
Actually, it's what I wanted to see happen. The uncertainty has been removed here; the court went with laches. This can go to SCOTUS without a problem. It's going to be an opinion well worth reading and one for the history books.
People have been talking here for a few weeks about how this is heading to the supreme court. You can't go to the supreme court with nothing to talk about now can you?
I know I read somewhere a court said nothing could be done before the election because there was no “injury”. So once it all goes down they say you should have done something sooner?
Stage 1: There's no problem
Stage 2: There may be a problem, but it's too early to do anything about it
Stage 3: Maybe we should do something about this problem, but there's nothing we can do.
Stage 4: There was something we could have done, but it's too late now
And Gore won every challenge before Bush brought it to the Supremes. This is so much bigger. Someone better realize what is being set up to happen here if justice does not prevail.
One of the plaintiffs is someone that won which means he could lose if the case goes in his favor. This works well in the plaintiffs favor on the case.
Weren't 2 of the judges republican? It was a 7-0 ruling...does that mean the republican judges are getting paid off by the deep state? This is way too fishy.
Also it's not exactly fair for a campaign to have to spend money on lawsuits before an election. They should be devoting all resources to the campaign. They would have just been thrown out before the election anyway. These guys are hacks.
They’ll take it up to the Supreme Court then. The doctrine of laches this court applied is sort of a “you waited too long to sue” doctrine. Not sure that really should apply for constitutional questions. The issue they are raising is that the election was conducted according to a new law that had not finished going through the amendment process, instead of the existing law on the books.
Also, going to SCOTUS isn’t guaranteed. But given the importance of the issue here, I’d imagine SCOTUS would grant cert and take the case.
Throw them into The Grand Canyon and feed the wildlife. There's a train depot there standing by ready for the thousands and thousands of fake election participants.
There must be grieved parties to file a lawsuit. That is the first question a judge will ask. If they would have filed a lawsuit in 2019 when the mail-in ballot laws were changed - it would have been kicked out because there were no grieved parties. This is the first election since the law change. NOW we have grieved parties (2020 voters). Lawsuit filed - SCOPA says we weren't timely. They're playing games.
How about focusing on DA races and midterm elections
Gee, I don't know. Maybe because we focused on the Presidential election... and actually won it straight up.
So, let me ask you. Let's say we do focus on DA races and midterm elections, and win them straight up also. But... because of election fraud, the fraudster candidates actually get seated instead of the rightful winners. Then what will you suggest? We focus on the 2024 election?
Do you get where this is going?
If you lose this election, you lose America. That's all there is to it.
All you have to do is look at history. When a new king takes a throne, the first thing they do is secure the throne. They imprison and execute anyone who has a valid claim to the throne or the capability to take it. That's what the court system and election system are in the USA. They will never again be valid. They will become mirrors of courts and elections in communist dictatorships. They exist only as a show.
People get upset and I understand it’s a touchy subject but we can’t keep watching our country falling without doing something. We may have to use force eventually. There comes a time when there are no other options unless we want to be slaves and have all of our freedoms stripped.
Our opposition acts so incredulously because conservatives & moderates don't show an iota of physical anger. The last time Republicans 'rioted' was 2000 when the Republicans rushed a precinct to stop recounts. And it worked
Still have the Supreme Court. But if that shit goes south, it’s gonna be a select few that will opt to kick things off. Then the rest either fall in line or step aside.
Off to SCOTUS it goes. We knew that's where it was headed, but it really is disheartening to see so many politicians along the way either be partisan hacks, or afraid to stand up for the constitution, or go against the establishment, or go against the deep-state, or all the above.
If it comes down to a 1776 level fight, the enemy is showing us who they are. We all should pray it doesn't get to that. If need be, this is my hill. This is where I will draw my line.
It does feel good to be on the right side of history. Let's pray SCOTUS isn't too fucked to be a beacon of justice and put the commie pricks on notice.
Whatever happens, I've been expecting one of the major parties to die after this year. Both parties have been destabilized by the emergence of Obama and Trump over their parties' management.
Of course, there will be "another" major party, but membership is going to shift around.
If the Democrats succeed in stealing the presidency, I expect the Republicans to disintegrate, with a core forming around Trump and attracting pro-American Democrats, while globalist Republicans complete their transition to the Democrats.
If the Republicans prevail, the Democrats will likely jettison their gerontocracy and solidify around policies that target their core constituencies of the ultra-rich and ultra-poor (and ultra-confused). Remains to be seen how they would remain relevant as a fringe party. Perhaps they will repeat what happened to the Whigs in the 1850s.
I wish there was a way to send this out loud and clear...
"Can't buck up people's courage, by telling them their outnumbered or that they're not welcome in the Big Republican Tent.
Nor can DJT get Republican Electors if people are constantly talking about spliting the party, it's way more toxic than "concern trolling" and way more traitorous than RINOs. What's worse someone who pretends to be a Republican, or one who's advocating destroying/spliting the party whom DJT is the head of?
Too much angnst and fear and misplaced energy, in short too many people acting like Democrats. Focus & Discipline. HOLD THE LINE!"
We have a serious gap in leadership (training) around here for years for all kinds of reasons; and it got worse when we lost so many of our NCO types and others with the Hard Drive from Hell all over this DOM, making it unsafe for so many who have/had careers with leadership skills.
LONG LIVE OUR REPUBLIC!! VOTE & JOIN REPUBLICAN TO SAVE OUR REPUBLIC! MAGA On!
This ruling is a joke. They're saying that they waited too long to file the case, but if they did it BEFORE the election they would have said there was no injury and kicked it out as well. This is a first year law school concept and these "judges" are a disgrace to their profession.
Exactly why I have zero confidence in courts saving this country, even SCOTUS. I would have more faith in ten thousand patriots from this website in doing more good for this country than courts ever could.
I am fairly certain the Bush vs. Gore was a mess in the Florida supreme court and then ended up in the US Supreme Court. The Florida court then, like the Pennsylvania court now was a den of partisan hackery.
Lawyer here. Didn’t read the decision, but if PA Supreme Court is using laches to essentially kill a State constitution dispute, that’s a crazy method for dispatching a meritorious claim that is based on the SECOND highest law of the land in that state. It's potentially akin to saying that there is a violation of the state constitution, but plaintiff "slept on his rights" and the action would now cause prejudice or injury to the defendant due to the lateness.
For this decision to survive, SCOTUS would need to agree that you can simply use equitable remedies, like a bullshit laches defense, to ignore state constitutional mandates in a way that acts to violate the federal constitution. That's why I’m not buying the argument that SCOTUS lacks jurisdiction on a future appeal for this case because this dispute about the state constitution is intertwined with federal constitutional mandates - SCOTUS should arguably be able to decide whether the State is satisfying its obligations under the federal Constitution here, whether the state can simply ignore state constitution violations using equitable defenses on this narrow question.
State Legislatures essentially govern the methods of the election locally. If the state has a local constitution, passed by the state Legislature, those laws must faithfully be executed, with no deviation, nor should a defense of laches be applicable to a dispute involving a core function of our national government, as this then becomes a matter of compliance with the requirements of the federal constitution, because the very notion that the state legislature governs is dictated by the federal constitutional, with SCOTUS being the ultimate body reviewing said compliance under the doctrine of Judicial Review, regardless of whether there is an equal protection issue.
It would probably be consolidated with the other cases moving up to SCOTUS. And no, this is simply one state's constitutional violation, this case alone doesn't bring Trump the presidency. But this is a very straightforward argument to knock out Pennsylvania. No need to prove fraud or irregularities.
The main decision is typical technicality bullshit that activist judges pull whenever their commie feelz get hurt. The concurring/ dissenting opinion is interesting.
As I understand it, the Justice is basically saying, "Get bent on your invalidating votes remedy, but your constitutional challenge has merit"
The uphill battle on this in all courts is, right thing or not, no one wants to be "that guy" who overturned millions of votes. In inescapable outcome of doing so- even though I personally think it MUST be done- is going be like setting off a nuke in every U.S. city simultaneously.
I've said before, all those riots and cities burning... did you think that was for a dead drug addict? Nope. It was a threat and preview of what would happen on a much grander scale if the free shit army does get its way. No judge is going to say it, but you can be damn sure that it is influencing their opinion.
I have been saying repeatedly that we need to make sure that legislators, courts, etc. clearly understand that we will not allow this to get swept under the rug and gain understanding that their "leadership" is whatever Party flunky they've been bowing to, but The People.
Courts will be particularly hard since they have no real accountability to The People
IF things get nasty & commies come out, we use all of our inalienable rights.
What do you mean with "commies come out"? Come out on top? Why or how else would they come out if they win? And, just to play devil's advocate, are you sure the right will come out and "use our rights"? Because our side severely lacks organization and motivation, it seems. People suffered through eight years of "that Kenyan Muslim commie who isn't even a legitimate US citizen" without rising up. We aren't sending any signals, there's no preview of attractions to come, so to speak. All we are showing is that we are law-abiding citizens who will respect the rule of law (i.e. the decision of the courts), while the other side will burn down cities and murder and riot if they even as much as imagine a slight injustice. Now which side would you try to appease, and which side would you throw under the bus, if your aim is to preserve the peace and public order, or - a bit more egoistic - your own well-being? In an ideal society, each time a case gets thrown out by some cangaroo court, there would be an angry mob outside the courthouse protesting that decision. But there isn't. And the right side even takes pride in this. It's logical, of course, as it's part of our identity, but it's also what is making us prime candidates for cuckery. That's just how it is, and frankly, I don't see it changing. I've seen too much big talk for many, many years, with nothing happening at all. If we can't get people to simply protest, we won't get them to pick up a rifle and go risk their lives trying to overthrow court rulings, no matter how injustly treated they might feel. This attitude is the first thing to be changed, through organization and motivation. We can learn a lot from the left in regards to this, they don't wait for someone else to somehow show up and tell them what to do, they step up themselves and start networking and organizing.
and you can bet your ass that their is some built up rage that these ANTIFA/BLM slap dicks are not ready for.....the gloves will come off and everything is fair game at that point.
SCOTUS will make one of the most important ruling in American history in the upcoming weeks. Be ready either way, but I'm still confident this goes the way of justice and Trump prevails.
People should start to assemble in front of court houses and state legislatures, or rather, should've started two weeks ago. But as with getting guns, "the best time to get one was back then, the second best time is right now". Locals need to man up and start organizing if there is nobody else doing it. I get that the right "has jobs and families and the left has no jobs and so much free time at their hands" yadda yadda yadda. But we also have jobless people, or pensioners, older pedes with kids out of the house, who could start organizing "the resistance".
It's explicitly up to the states to determine how to run their own elections. If a state's highest court says everything changed legally and the election was fine (even if it wasn't), the SCOTUS shouldn't in theory really have any business forcing the state to change how it runs its elections.
To put the shoe on the other foot, the same logic people are asking for here could be used to say, force conservative states to forgo voter ID, allow illegal immigrants to vote, etc. if the SCOTUS was left-leaning. A left-leaning court would do stuff like that anyway, but conservative justices seem to like to play by the rules even when it hurts them in the end.
Except that this is for a federal election for president. The federal constitution applies. PA can still run its statewide elections like a banana republic but not at the expense of other states when voting for president.
"The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
Wong. The SCOTUS has every right to get involved if there is overstepping done on FEDERAL elections, especially if the overstepping can hurt other states as well.
You need to stop spreading bad information, or just not spreading any at all.
SCOTUS comes into play when federal guarantees are violated - like equality of the vote, such that legitimate voters don't have their votes diluted by automatically generated ballots. "Curing" of ballots offered in Democrat strongholds that weren't available to residents elsewhere.
Of course, should a state legislature choose to allocate its electors, as the constitution permits, they may be called upon to confirm the process is equitable to the voters.
Alright, they are traitors. Now what? Everybody just seems to accept that, expecting SCOTUS to save us. If that doesn't happen, though, the time for protests will be over, as we can't very much protest "our" SCOTUS full of Trump picks. Now would be a good time to protest against the PA SC.
I can already see the Hitler in the bunker memes from the "Untergang" movie. "Once this goes to SCOTUS, everything will be alright." - "Mein Fuhrer, SCOTUS just ruled. They ... they couldn't find any wrongdoing." etc.
It's afraaaaaaaaaid. That denial from the PA supreme court is making them part of the election fraud in the eyes of the federal Supreme Court. They are proving our point. We caught them cheating an election.
The courts argument was that "They didn't file it in a timely manner". OKAY so violating the constitution is OKAY if you do it and someone complains afterwards.
Not only that they tossed ALL other petitions too (those being cases) pre-emptively and with prejudice. This is your courts on Liberalism folks! They will REFUSE to even hear cases because "Should have complained earlier!"
Chief Justice Thomas noted... that the [] suit “posed troublesome questions about the constitutional validity of the new mail-in voting scheme.”
Still, they concluded: “There has been too much good-faith reliance, by the electorate, on the no-excuse mail-in voting regime … to warrant judicial consideration of the extreme and untenable remedies proposed”.
“There has been too much good-faith reliance, by the electorate, on the no-excuse mail-in voting regime"
So what he is saying here, is none of the judges have the nuts to tell the people of their state that their votes will be disregarded. They are afraid of the backlash. They are not doing their jobs which is to uphold the law. No surprise. On to an unbiased authority at the Federal level !
Riggers at all levels, whether in the legislatures, the courts, or the governors' mansions, will always rig. That's what they do. Especially when the riggers are funded by the Chicoms.
Does that mean it will go to the federal Supreme Court now?
Legal pede here:
SCotUS can hear state supreme court cases on appeal of constitutional questions, unless there is an independent and adequate state law ground for the state court ruling.
There doesn't appear to be one, as this ruling isn't rooted in the vagaries PA law.
Edit: simple answer, there's no ground for SCotUS not to hear the case, so it's almost certainly going to the Supreme Court. The only way it doesn't is if 6 justices say no.
Edit 2: for anyone thinking that there is no US Constitutional question, please read Bush v. Gore (or check the wikipedia for a quick overview). There are questions of Constitutional review concerning the state case, including but not limited to due process and Article 2 plenary power.
The constitution delegates the power to select electors to the state legislatures (which would include the voting process for that state). The PA legislature never approved the expanded mail-in voting that PA used for this election
The PA legislature did approve of it, but the law they passed was unconstitutional because the PA Constitution gives specific requirements for mail-in ballots.
theres 2 things re Act 77 that expanded mail-in ballots in PA from what I gather when listening to Bannon discussing this with Sean Parnell (the other plaintiff in this case):
The law (Act77) was passed with the goal of expanding the use of mail-in ballots but is unconstitutional because of specific requirements in the PA Constitution that are needed in order to change the conditions of use of mail-in ballots as the law was intent in doing.
After the law was passed, the PA governor and election officials went in just before the election and amended the law by going to the PA supreme court and basically took out safeguards put in the law (Act77) itself for accepting mail-in ballots. They went to the partisan PA supreme court and did not go through the legislature to do it. And that is also unconstitutional.
for both violation 1) and 2), SCOTUS can accept to hear the case. But especially in violation 2) as that is basic constitutional law 101 that affects every state : only the legislative branch can enact and amend laws, not the executive or judiciary branch as it has been done in PA.
That is my understanding of the situation . If I am wrong somewhere, dont hesitate to correct me.
Oh shit, a WoW reference!
Shadowland is out. We should all band together and form a MAGA guild!
I’d be there!
Best concise explanation of the situation. I have only been researching legal concepts for a little over a year, and it is amazing how easy it is to poison the well of information because of how complex and often convoluted the whole thing can be.
The people need this kind of no nonsense breakdown in order to not be swayed by manufactured opinions.
Half the time it seems like the activists in the Judiciary dont grasp the underlying concepts.
Seems like a good time to get into constitutional law practice. Obviously job opportunities in that field are not being filled by our best and brightest for the most part. (Obvious exceptions being Amy Coney Barret, Linn Wood, Sydney Powell, Jenna Ellis, and Rudy Giuliani.)
So the more complicated. The suit is, the easier it is to find judgement against it. In other words KISS.
Mods, give this man a "Constitutional Scholar" flair
Is this the case in which several states' attorneys general filed amicus briefs? Seems like there's a lot of support.
This POS says this is an "effort to subvert the will of Pennsylvania voters." UNLESS YOU AUDIT THE VOTE IN THE FACE OF ALL THIS EVIDENCE OF FRAUD, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY IS!
yes I think that point 2) is where other states joined in because a SCOTUS decision on that point would affect them as well.
Also, it's worth noting that the legislature had given the authority over voting in PA to the Secretary of State. They are in the process of rescinding this.
I know people are hopeful for this, but the House leadership has expressed no intention of holding a session to even hold a vote for it.
Justice David N. Wecht wrote: “Courts should not decide elections when the will of the voters is clear.”
Let this prick know that in the face of all this evidence of fraud, the will of the voters is NOT clear! You can send them your feedback here:
http://www.pacourts.us/comments-and-inquiries
Tell them they knowingly certified fraud. A person without ulterior motives would clearly see that there is enough going on here to at least warrant a thorough investigation.
Why waste our time?
The state legislature gave away their responsibility to the state executive. Separation of powers? Apparently not.
Them doing this type of thing is the reason the Governor and the courts are running all over them.
Isn’t this akin to the line item veto? One branch cannot give up their Constitutional duty to another branch, which is why Congress couldn’t give their budgetary authority to the President.
Welcome to the root of Michigan's fuckery
So your telling me Pa republicans passed a stupid law then
"We don't wanna do it. You do it."
Sincerely
-Please vote for me again.
Also pay me more next time while I do even less.
Yes.
Yes, which leaves this lawsuit in the incredibly bizarre position of the plaintiffs suing to argue that their own actions were unconstitutional. The judge didn't seem too impressed.
But SCOTUS cannot hear a case based on the PA constitution. The PA Supreme Court is cucked.
Edit: I see a lot of people getting butthurt about this response. The US Supreme Court cannot rule on whether or not a PA law violates the PA constitution. There are other, ongoing cases regarding the Constitutional validity of the voting deadline changes (among other things), that Trump will almost certainly win.
After this year i would expect every pede to be a constitutional scholar.
They'd review if the provision violated federal constitutional provisions, like the 13 Amendment. They won't review if a state law violates a state constitution.
They can on the grounds that separation of powers clause was violated in this case.
PA77's modifications that removed the safeguards were done through PA Scotus by going around the legislature. In effect, Wolf made the State's court a new legislative body. Without the House and Senate unable to do their job does violate separation of powers clause, as well equal protection and dredges up other legal issues.
We literally had laws like that for decades in the U.S. and it was legal depending on state. There are multiple SCOTUS rulings that freed slaves that were brought from slave states into states that prohibited slavery. It took the 13th Amendment to get rid of slavery as an institution, and the 14th amendment to affirm that citizens have the same rights no matter what state they're in. But the 14th Amendment didn't give the federal government supremacy over the states in all matters.
One of the strengths of the U.S. is giving strong preference to local governance versus having all power centralized in Washington, D.C. (the swamp), I hate seeing people here in addition to the left asking for more central government.
<It took the 13th Amendment to get rid of slavery as an institution>
Did I miss the part of a civil war to do this?!
Edit: Nevermind, this reply was in regards to the treatment of observers. The SCOTUS can probably hear this case on the basis on how Federal law allows the election of Federal elected officials.
PA cannot add any laws that would violate the Federal Constitution or Federal law. That's Supremacy Clause. (Article VI, Paragraph 2).
In this theoretical scenario, legalizing slavery is in contradiction to the Constitution, and includes Federal charges, they can still be charged under Federal laws and go to jail in a Federal jail, no matter what the law is in PA or under the PA constitution.
The only law that I'm aware of regarding observers of State Elections are part of the Voting Rights Act, which permits Federal observers in certain States and Counties.
It's clear that the PA election officials only adhered to the letter of the law, and not the spirit in regards to observers. Since it is politically advantageous of the PA Supreme Court to tell the GOP observers to get fucked, they did.
The whole reason why we have observers is to make sure there isn't any shitty behavior by election officials. Cheating in some fashion has been going on in this country for centuries by different political machines, where observers help prevent it. Cheating happened in 2020, that's why they kicked out the observers.
Be outraged over this.
Put in on your wishlist for a Federal Law to be put in place rights for observers. Hopefully for a Voting Rights Act of 2021 or 2023.
And it can also come back and bite them in the ass regarding SCOTUS cases regarding the fraud in this election, and be used as a reason for the PA legislature to send no electors, or electors for Trump.
The issue is does PA77 alone warrant a SCOTUS review...possibly not
However,
PA77's modifications and other shady issues where PA courts rewrote the law without input of the state's legislature does violate separation of powers. That is where SCOTUS can review and possibly order PA's SCOTUS to toss out the law by precedence set out by its own constitution.
Yes they can.
SCOTUS can definitely hear state constitution issues if it believes other states or the federal Constitition is affected. In fact SCOTUS has overruled state constitutions that criminalized homosexuality because it violated federal law.
The legislature could argue that the governor changed the rules they agreed to.
Agreed, also these aren't state elections they are federal elections that are impacted (Presidential, house of representatives) so that also provides standing.
Those cases are probably based on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. I guess the GOP could argue that this constitutional amendment violates the rights of legal voters and is also a violation of equal protection under the law. I wonder if it'll be successful.
There was no amendment. They just went ahead and did it. Same with how the PA legislature handed over selection of electors in 1938 to the Sec. of State. Its all just a bunch of backhanded deals in PA.
I OBJECT, to your username, on grounds of personal jealousy. Do you Pede guilty?
Winnocent
I upvoted you because I think you should be able to ask about what you did, but I believe the SC could theoretically hear the case on the basis on the US public being impacted by the results in PA, thus making it a federal issue.
Fuck any SCOTUS justice if they rule against us or if they punt it back to state courts. Also, if they punt it back while they all 9 claim to be "anonymous" and don't make themselves known publically because they are too chickenshit then fuck all the conservative justices.
I think you might be retarded. Nothing you said was in any way connected to what you replied to.
Anaconda is always saying that shit
He the Piers Morgan of dot win.
His posting history has been completely erratic since the election. Seems normal enough before then. I wonder if he's been hacked?
Shh these are top tier trolls. The Elite shitposters of .win. Just watch.
Plot twist: Neither are wrong
It’s a copy pasta as low effort as it is
Why is he doing it though? It's fucking gay
LOL. I thought you were Anaconda’s alt account.
So many mysteries to solve. Better get AG Barr on it....Now wait for it...Phuckt.
LMAO
No it doesn’t. Idk why this low level shit is getting passed around so much. The state appoints electors, not the legislature, the legislature gets to choose the manner in which that happens. They chose to do it by popular vote and they had to direct that manner by nov 3, the date congress set for the election. Legislature does not get to change it after the fact, at least not untill unless scotus rules on the constitutional clauses stoping them.
The Legislature can decide the electors at the last minute if it so chooses and can absolutely go against popular vote. One good cause would be the discovery of massive fraud, but a more likely cause would be the discovery that the winning candidate was unfit for office (such as having secretly been born outside the U.S. or only being 30 years old).
Well, technically Trump got the popular vote, since a large margin of the Biden votes were fraudulent.
They claim they don't want to rule against the will of the people, but by refusing to appoint Trump electors, they are doing EXACTLY what they claim to be against...
That claim has to first be proven - or, in the very least, the judge(s) must believe it.
Edit: sorry, my first sentence comes off as too combative. It should say, “we need them to introduce the proof of fraud in court, so the legislature can act on it.” I didn’t mean to dismiss the fraud that has been proven, just meant to say it is harder to act on when it hasn’t been demonstrated in court. I’m leaving original below.
But someone has to prove fraud somewhere that isn’t a YouTube video or Twitter thread so the legislature has something to act on.
I’m so pissed at these lawyers because they aren’t even trying. Look at the PA SC dismissal today. It says there was a failure to allege any fraud, then goes on to note that is exactly what Rudy did last week.
No one is talking about fraud in the courts! Of course the act of invalidating millions of ballots is going to be an extreme remedy if they were all cast according to the process as laid out. I’d be fucking pissed if I followed the rules and my ballot was thrown out because someone else decided they didn’t like the rules.
If they would enter evidence of fraud, the solution of invalidating votes is much easier to arrive at.
Technically, it wouldn't matter if they threw a legit ballot out. If you go by the REAL results, Trump won. So, the Biden ballots don't really matter. If a Trump vote gets thrown out in the process of removing some ballots to declare Trump the winner, it still doesn't matter, because Trump wins anyways.
Without the fraudulent ballots, Trump won. Whether 1 person voted for Biden or 1 million. It would still be the same outcome.
Your vote matter in DETERMINING the winner. The winner has already been determined, and it's Trump. Now that we have established that, the ballots no longer matter. It would be like throwing out the ballots a year after the election. Once you have a winner, they no longer matter.
...or born in Kenya?
The secretary of state changed the voting rules without legislative approval, which is illegal under the constitution because the legislature did not give the sos the power to do that
But Act 77 is in direct violation of the state constitution for PA, you stupid leftie shill.
This is true but this is something the legislature should have sent to the court beforehand and had the PA SC make a ruling on.
2 things when a court wants to allow unconstitutional laws. Many times courts rule that because an action on law hasn’t occurred then there is no basis for a hearing. Then if the action has occurred they say you should have asked prior to the unconstitutional act. Cant win. The court can have it both ways.
And then theyd get struck down because they havent been injured yet lol. You're a a brainlet , Chang.
That's not how it works, the PA Constitution would have to have been amended according to the processes set forth for amendment by the PA Constitution. The government CAN NOT violate it and their Supreme Court isn't a body intended to enable exceptions or circumventions of the Constitution, but to enforce it dutifully.
This decision completely ignores the obvious violation of the PA Constitution - the justices even played themselves when they complained that the suit didn't make any claims of fraud... you know why it didn't? Because it's not a requirement... the law is unconstitutional and that's all there should be to it.
The remedy need not be the total invalidation of the vote, but this court viewed that as the only logical outcome - but giving the State an opportunity to re-vote, in person, is beyond the capacity of these people.
I don't disagree, that doesn't make it constitutional however.
this from a comment 9 days old and fuel of shilling, ok sure whatever you say guy.
Don’t dignify
Deport
Legislature the other day said that that never went through them - Governor signed it immediately upon it hitting his desk. Then said any challenge would be immediately veto'd
Why did they try so hard to push this through without the legislature. very interesting.
Legislature started it, but governor signed it through after legislature gave up on it.
For it to be legal, it would have had to have been past through 2 legislative meetings, posted in 2 newspapers in every county in the state, AND voted upon by the people this general election.
There was no way to legally pass it before this election and they knew it.
at the hearing the other day they said it never went through them at all. So.......
This sounds like a disagreement for the SCOTUS to decide.
This is literally a procedural constitutional lawsuit and the PA SC decided to just not hear the case based on shaky ground of not being filed in a timely manner.
Timely manner, filled the next fucking day????
The PA Supreme Court is like 5 D, 2 R, the result is expected...
How did Pennsylvania manage to have a Supreme Court that resembles California's?
They're elected to 21 year terms by statewide election. Philly controls the statewide offices, while the House and Senate are red due to the massive land area of the state.
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
Soros
https://mobile.twitter.com/CottoGottfried/status/1332849169158070272
"Democracy Alliance" lobbying since 2015 is the claim
But then it would have been dismissed for lack of standing - I.e. no harm had been done, nobody was injured.
Yes that was the tweet
That seems to create a new rule. It is permissible to violate the constitution, if you can do so without anyone contesting the violation within 180 days, after which time, the violation can become law.
Yeah, that's their explanation, and it's garbage. The idea that an unconstitutional law must be immediately challenged is asinine... there have been MANY laws that were stricken as unconstitutional after decades of being on the books.
Well - and she actually didn’t certify procedurally.
This doesn't have anything to do with certification other than the judge has halted certification until after the legal proceedings are finished.
Which is fully reviewable by the Supreme Court!
Non legal pede here. Does this mean yes or no.
It means yes, because it literally doesn't matter what any of these lower courts say.
If 4 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices say they will hear the case, it goes to the Supreme Court. Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are almost certainly going to allow it.
Hold the line.
Clarence "Dark Winter" Thomas will likely also hold the line
”I’ve waited 30 years for this Joe”
Dems will threaten his safety and demand he recuse himself for conflict of interest citing he would have a desire for revenge and could not rule with a clear head.
Guessing they will try to send mobs to his house.
lol imagine the fucking retardation
"You aren't allowed to rule on my case because I tried to ruin your life!"
"It's been a long time, Joseph. Do you remember? I certainly have."
"Who am I?"
Hehe...
This action started in state court. It need not proceed to any federal court but the Supreme Court upon SCOTUS' grant of certiorari.
Clarence Thomas will almost certainly rule in favor of hearing the case. I would be shocked if he didn’t.
Is it 4 or 6? A pede above with legal experience said 6. I prefer your answer of course.
It's 4. That person said if 6 say no the Supreme Court won't hear it.
9 Justices - 6 dissenters = only 3 saying yes. We need 4 to say yes.
I feel like such an idiot because the really simple way you explained it finally made sense to me.
Thanks 😂
its called reading nigga
Rule of 4. It's not an official rule but it's the one they've followed since the 1800s.
Is there enough time ffs our SCOTUS is dog shit right now.
What does it mean for dummies??
just hold tight to your boomstick and charge when we say charge in Minecraft.
Unless 6 Justices say no, yes
So will this go to the SCOTUS?
It should, there is enough evidence from what I have seen in the affidavits. Lying on signed affidavits is perjury.
Unless 6 Justices say no, yes
Do 6 justices have to say no or do 4 justices have to say yes?
4 have to say yes, but unlike typical cases seeking Cert, the Court is aware of inevitability of these election challenges. They aren't going to delay on deciding whether or not to grant cert, so all justices will weigh in.
Yes!
nigga why would 6 justices have to say no to hearing it for the court to hear it lmao? thats like asking a bitch if she tryna fuck and she say no so u think yes and try to fuck ??????
What I meant was, do they vote on not seeing a case, or do they vote on seeing a case. If the vote on not seeing it then it's 6 justices that have to say no, otherwise, it's 4 justices that have to say yes.
brah if they voted on not getting cases then those poor old niggas would get a million cases dropped on em every year lmao
Full speed, no brakes.
Its all going to plan pedes
Whoever downvoted this is a doomer and needs to reconsider their life choices
Doomers need to disembark from the front of the MAGA Train🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
Or perhaps stand in front of it.
It needed to get thrown out so that the case can be appealed to the Supreme Court.
We have a solid 5-3-1 majority. SCOTUS is on our side, and Justice Clarence Thomas is probably itching for some revenge against Joe Biden.
nah big T tryna uphold da CONSTITUTION like he said when he applied for da job. upholding da constitution means tossing biden a big L tho
Excellent. I wish all judges were like him.
Given the PA supreme court is overwhelmingly democrat, they were definitely expecting it to get get thrown out, yes. Which means it now gets to go to the actual supreme court, where we hold the majority even if Roberts cucks, and that's the end of it. Supreme Court ruling is final.
No, SCOTUS would laugh and mock the PA State Supreme Court for its errant application of laches. After that, it will get interesting. The Court could go rather far with the opinion but they may remand with more limited instruction. We'll have to wait and see. No doubt SCOTUS has been expecting this as case to come their way for some time now.
Not the plan for it to be thrown out. That was just the expected outcome. So nothing to be worried about. It was always the expectation that the case would be appealed, including if the PA SC ruled in favor of the republicans.
Huh? Scotus has always been the plan.
Obviously that's ideal...but then it goes to SCOTUS. Don't think anyone expected the lower courts to be non-partisan in their decisions.
This is politics. The point is to exhaust as many viable options within the time limit and create enough doubt to then legitimate the use of Article 2. They have the authority, but the fact is the voting populace aren't a bunch of dispassionate constitutional scholars.
So losing a pretty clear-cut case in a sate state Supreme Court is “going to plan?”
I don’t like the idea of always relying on the SCOTUS to be the backstop for everything, especially given how politicized it has become. Seems like having the states do the right thing would avoid a lot of headaches and potential risk.
Wouldn’t a better plan have bin to just win the case?
The PA SC was never going to do anything in trumps favor or make anything easy is the point hes making. As much as we all wouldve liked for this to be settled today it's not really surprising this dem heavy court found a way to kick it back
Do you think that is possible?
Did you not see the flimsy nonsense they rejected the case on?
Do you really think there was a snowball in hell chance of winning that case?
It is a stepping stone. That’s it. That’s all it ever could have been. The rejection is expected.
You may not like relying on the SC, but that is where we are at. You don’t like how it is politicized, but I don’t like how mortal kombat, my kid’s homework, and even my aquarium magazines, are politicized. Everything is politicized, now. It’s actually been that way for a while. In six months, when there’s pandemonium, as pissed off leftists burn down their own cities, are you going to like where we are at? I’m not, but if we win with this, the breakdown is inevitable. Actually, the breakdown is inevitable anyway.
The country is dysfunctional. The justice systems is dysfunctional. It’s never going to be like it was.
We can win this one, and postpone the reckoning another four years, at least. War will eventually be inevitable, though. There’s no avoiding that.
2024 is coming, as you have said, and these specific events aren’t going to change what is inevitable, but with four more years of GEOTUS, we can better prepare. That way, when things come to a head, we will have a greater advantage.
"going to plan" is better stated as "going as expected"
It's not always possible to win a particular "event" but it's also not damaging to lose a particular "event" either.
No. Trump said it election night.
"We are going to take this to the Supreme Court"
Win the case in a court completely stacked with Dims? Good luck w/that.
Four SCotUS judges can decide to hear the case.
They won’t though, they would have to overturn so many of there own cases about state rights to hear this.
It's the right of a state to violate its own constitution and the US constitution to deliver a fraudulent presidential vote result? I don't think so.
nah - Bush v Palm Beach County Canvassing Board - as referenced by Justice Alito specifically in reference to PA in this election cycle
Which cases are you referring to exactly?
Civil War is increasingly necessary
Yes, if the Courts fail to rectify this and continue to act in this illegitimate manner, the United States has dissolved and no longer exists as a legal legitimate entity.
Cucked Scotus judge who should be an R but always votes with the Dems. Bush appointee
That's Roberts, not Robertson.
It’s ‘Roberts’, I assume he was being facetious. But yes, you are correct.
I dont think you know how this works.
We HOLD THE FUCKING LINE until December 8.
Now, I’ve been in this pit a time or two. Here’s what helps. First, go watch some Bannon or Louder with Crowder. Now, get off the news and (if you must) only check top post on TDW once in the morning, once in the evening, preferably less. Next, get some fresh air, and hopefully some sunshine. Take some vitamin d3, anyhow. Plan and cook an nice meal for your family. Deck the halls and watch a Christmas movie together. You’ll feel better. You’ll hold the line and trust PDJT and his team to drive the train. 🇺🇸🙏❤️
If it’s as you say, the war begins. There’s zero point in going there until we have to go there. Nothing is beneficial about calling the game before the last three outs.
Honestly, I'm predicting SCOTUS doesn't hear a single case, and anyone thinking the courts are going to save this Republic are mistaken.
It's good to have faith, but you must be realistic too. SCOTUS isn't going to overturn this, they aren't necessarily brave patriots willing to risk everything for America. Are enough of them willing to endure the death threat and constant attacks from the left? Seriously, how often have we seen anyone stand up for MAGA within the government systems or even the GOP? The fact is our systems and politicians are hopelessly corrupt and incompetent.
It all needs to be torn down and every single politicians finances investigated. When Americans realize 80% are bought and paid for by China, maybe enough people will rise up.
If Biden enters office, America will be a client state of China.
The Supreme Court is done? Have they even met yet on this? How do you know the conservative judges (the real ones) won’t be solid on this?
Let’s wait until things settle. The president hasn’t given up yet. I will when he does. After that, it will be time to come up with something else.
Here's the analysis: It wouldn't make sense, from a constitutional perspective, for SCOTUS to take this case. If the situation were reversed, we know a left leaning SCOTUS would take the case anyway and create law out of thin air for their own benefit, but we already know "conservative" justices don't operate that way, so it's likely they'll decline to hear the case because it's a state's rights matter.
Unless it interferes with another state or federal law. Which is does. Stop spreading ignorance.
Do you know this for a fact?
The loss was always expected, so they have to have some kind of plan.
This isn’t a state matter at this point, either. They will do the right thing, or they will be traitors.
ok doomer
I think so
Remember all these people who threw out cases and keep a log. These people are guilty of treason and must be arrested.
Yes
If they agree to pick it up. Yep.
It'll be okay, brother. Like Rudy said, these areas are Democrat-ran and Democrat-controlled. Their police are liberal hacks, their sheriff's are libeal hacks, and their local justice systems are liberal hacks. Within every echelon of state government, it's nut-to-butt with Biden dick-riding losers,
No matter how well Trump does in the lower courts, the presidential election MUST end in the highest court. Until that final battle comes, don't let these godless liberal faggots fuck up your day. We will have the last laugh and it will be top five MOST significant elections in our country's history.
Be proud that you and I are around to spread the good word of Kekistan!!
It will go to commonwealth. Not sure if that means it has a path to SCOTUS
(here's sean parnell talking about it) https://youtu.be/2QJxJpaWvME?t=6020
Common wealth is a lower court to the SCOTUS of PA right?
"There's another settlement that needs our help!"
Yep, partisan hacks. They could care less about the constitution
Couldn't* care less.
Watch as my ability to care goes into the negative!
stop it with this shit, linguistics has long established that in the US it is OK to say "could care less", it's a regional idiom / phrase and you guys just look like absolute dumbasses arguing about it. The British dont say it like that and take offense for some reason.
Source? If this was accepted by anyone, it was a dimwit lefty. "Could care less" is nonsensical in the context that is is usually used.
The meaning is crystal clear:
Could care less = There are things I might care less about than this
Couldn't (could not) care less = There's nothing I could possibly care less about than this.
When people say this, they usually mean the 2nd one. "This thing is so unimportant, I couldn't care less about it"
Until you pay no attention and have apathy for something, you can always technically care less
We're not arguing, we're half joking about it and here you come blowing it the fuck up lmfao
Dass tru, fuk dis shiet, spleling iz raysist
No, it really doesn't work both ways.
Yes, it really does work both ways.
Either way, everyone gets the point: someone doesn't care.
"You're wrong." - Logical "You're right." - Sarcastic.
Who gives a fuck about reddit?
Nope it doesn't even work as sarcastic since that would be "wow, they care so much".
"They could care less" means they care somewhat and so you're effectively saying that it's SOMEWHAT important to them which is a super lukewarm statement to make and quite pathetic.
Yes, it completely works as sarcasm. This argument is stupid - and I mean that with complete sincerity.
By its nature sarcasm has to mean the opposite of what you intend to mean. By going for the middleground with what essentially means "somewhat interested", the sarcastic effect is nullified.
Why are you downvoting him, he’s right!
Couldn't care less vs could care less is the same argument as best of the worst vs worst of the best. It's highly subjective to interpretation.
If you think that the best and worst are distinct classes, it makes sense to be the worst of the best. Better to be the bottom of the top 10%, than the top of the bottom 10%. If you instead think that best and worst are a unified class that overlaps, with the worst being the "least best" and the best being the "least worst", then you should strive to be the best of the worst, or somewhere in the top 50%.
Paradigm matters. Would you rather be the richest vagrant on the streets or the poorest multi-billionaire in D.C, vs do you want to be a wealthy scrub or a poverty-ridden trust fund baby, are two very different questions to consider before answering "best of the worst or vice versa?"
Likewise, if you think that caring is a spectrum (with negative care being loathing and antipathy, for example), then couldn't care less makes no sense -- you can ALWAYS despise something more than you currently do. On the flipside, if you think that caring is a real value, then could care less makes no sense -- either you care the bare minimum of none or you don't, there is no caring less than not caring.
In mathematical terms, if I ask you on a scale of 0-10 how much you care, and you answer 0, then you couldn't care less. If I ask you on a scale of -∞ to ∞ how much you care, and you answer -10 zillion gajillion babillon, sheesh, you sure as shit don't care in the slightest, but... you know, you could care less.
However, while some people say 'could care less' and others say 'couldn't care less,' both groups are ultimately just saying 'I don't care' and EVERYFUCKINGBODY KNOWS THAT, so it's a moot point that only pedants and assholes argue about.
The world doesn't grind to a halt when I ask for an Allen wrench and you hand me a hex key.
Could care less means you care.
Example of proper use of "I could care less":
Leftie: "If you care about Democracy, you'll give Biden a chance!"
Me: "I could care less, and you're helping me get there."
Even that's weak sauce, what they would want to say would be more like "I can't believe I could care even less than I already do, but you've proven me wrong".
A better usage is when you someone doesn't expect you to be that interested in something, and you say, "Hmmmm, I could care less about this" which means you're actually somewhat (and surprisingly) interested and trying to state that in a sorta clever way.
Well excuse me!
Lol :P
I understood it but it really annoys me lol
I should have as well, I could have cared less... LMAO
Props on your handle BTW.
I couldn't care less if you could care less, but couldn't you be less careless?
It means there's some unknown level of caring left. The meaning itself "I could care less", means that the person's intent is to care even less than they already do, or not, but the implication is that they don't really care all that much.
How is it so hard to understand this simple concept? How are this many people so uptight about such a loosely-used idiom?
couldn't care less means you care, too. it just means you care less than anything else you care about
You can't care less than not caring at all.
Cares Too Much
Reasonably Cares
Cares Just A Little
Could Care Less <--- this one
Couldn't Care Less
Doesn't Care
Wrong. Couldn't care less and doesn't care are the same thing. And could care less could be anywhere, except at the bottom
'Could care less' makes 0 grammatical sense. That means that you could care less about it, meaning that you care more about it than you could do. Makes no sense at all. The emphasis is on 'could not care less' I.e. you could not care less than what you care about that
Could care less is shortened from the original " I could care less, but I'd have to try"
Just as a point in fact, "they could care less about the Constitution" but they care more about ________.
marxism,
money,
dem party,
keeping their kids from Bidens/Epstien/Hotdog+PizzaObamaParties, etc.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw
If they could care less, then that means they're still caring a little bit. Obviously that's not what's happening here.
Either way doesn’t work though
I’m good, I like the way it’s wrote. Thanks though
Written
😂
Lol. This is seriously getting ridiculous.
Thin ice, buddy, thin ice
Except what you wrote means that they could still care less about the constitution.
If they couldn't care less, that means they have hit the minimum threshold of caring.
Exactly.
"I could care less" is a short form idiom that derived out of "I could care less, if i cared at all.",
Never heard of that.
Interesting.
The more you know.
The way I described it is fine. Everyone gets the point. Don’t be such a leftist.
Nope. Speaking and writing clearly and concisely is not a left / right issue. It's a stupid / smart issue.
You have to admit, the left loves to correct grammar. I have no idea why everyone just attacked me. Did you not understand my apparent, “simpleton”, statement.
Someone just helped you sound smarter. It was free advice from an anonymous person on the internet that caused you zero personal embarrassment.
The way you said it was incorrect, even if lots of other people do the same. Don’t be a defensive snowflake. Understand the merits of the point being made (which is absolutely grammatically correct in this case) and embrace them.
I appreciate your response. Thanks. I would die for my country tomorrow. So don’t call me a snowflake.
You called someone a leftist for pointing out a grammatical error.
Turnabout is fair play.
Lol. I agree with that statement
I’m an English teacher and I think this conversation is silly.
could care less where I’m from, it means you don’t give a damn.
Could care less knows no specific areas in America, it sounds stupid whenever anyone says it...despite where they're from. As long as you understand that going forward.
It sounds fine. Many people seem to have understood what I said.
Then where you are fron has a bad education system.
*couldn't care less
Please
PA Supreme Court was a stepping stone on the path to SCOTUS.
It was a 7-0 ruling. Are the 2 republican judges getting paid off by the deep state? This is way too fishy.
This case has nothing to do with that.
It’s a bad peeve. Get over it.
We all knew this would happen
I am a bit confused since I thought I heard the "PA supreme court tossed the case" story a few days ago, so I am getting a bit of Deja Vu unless I am mistaken.
That's not how it should be viewed.... saying "It sucks" is not correct IMO... Getting the entire Election voided, would allow the GOP Controlled state legislature select electors.. we know, lots of RINOs, however... Having SCOTUS scrap or descredit the entire Pennsylvania Election (without "picking a winner"), goes a long way to helping a weak RINO filled Legislature (who are all answering to 85% MAGA voters), to justify choosing trump, over Biden.. because they can't say 'oh well Biden won, look at the votes".. no the votes are invalid, doesn't matter. They were illegal. So, its like giving cucked Republicans (under pressure from their constituents) the ammo to vote Trump, otherwise, they are literally electing Biden for no reason (because the vote tallies don't exist anymore). Its likely the best case and path we have.
I suck at law, so this might be a dumb question. Is SCOTUS basically a dumping ground for dismissed cases?
did we? i've been saying it would for days and all i got was called a doomer. this place is completely delusional. now all of a sudden when cases are being thrown out left and right and there's almost or actually no path left, is everyone going to pretend that they 'always knew'? weird
If you go back and read the last thread, everyone said the PA Supreme Court would throw it out and it would go to SCOTUS
Exactly, it would have been appealed by the Democrats to the SCOTUS
If course there's a path left wtf
They claim that by bringing down morale and shitting on everything, they are somehow helping. Pessimism and “being realistic” in the way they mean it, helps nothing.
There is no award for “I told you so.” Defeatism just makes a man look like a coward, even if the person proves correct. In this instance, the blackpilling is unwarranted. This is still ongoing. No one expected a Democrat-dominated court to give a just ruling.
Everyone is very understanding with the doomers. I do not agree. Doomers BTFO.
This guys a faggot I've run into him before saying equally ridiculous shit
Doug, you’re the faggot. Time to look into the mirror and reflect on what you’ve become. It’s pretty gross and fucked up.
You got me
Look I have my first fan!
Why was Amy Coney Barret confirmed right before the election? Who shut down Cuomo's occupancy limits on places of worship?
This. Barrett has proven herself to be able to follow constitutional law rather than fall to ‘Muh pandemic greater good’ BS. This is a great sign of what’s to come for us if she’s willing to take the less “popular” (according to libs) path.
This is key
Also why were they so afraid of RGB death
Your fussing serves no purpose. The path is the same regardless of whether you tsk tsk or not.
Well in this case the GOP contributed. They could have attacked the new statute months ago.
The GOP legislature passed this unconstitutional law.
The GOP legislature started Act 77 as a Constitutional amendment, since it would take for them to pass it again in a year, put it in 2 newspapers in each county, and then pass it by popular vote, it couldn't be ratified in time. So it was abandoned as an amendment, and was just signed into law by the governor.
They passed a law regarding this or was it the state officials setting the rules?
Which could be dismissed for "lack of standing" since they weren't harmed by the law yet. Also check to see if the law was passed properly. I've seen info that it wasn't and was signed by the gov into law.
This is why the courts are fucked. Same thing almost happened at SCOTUS recently. Because a legal loophole was exploited it's okay (is what the dissenting faggots including Roberts said).
Socialism 101
Let's get the Amish involved
They done been 1776ing forever
Every time I think of the Amish I think of J Roc playing one on Letterkenny once
I think of King Pin and that other movie with Harrison Ford
The Ford movie was "Witness", for the record.
Nice thanks couldn’t remember
Before even being allowed to show evidence. Again.
Didn't the SCOTUS shut down the PA Supreme court election day for not allowing people to view ballots?
Yes
This wasn't going to be a case based on evidence.
BIG BOY SCOTUS HERE WE GO
ARM THE BIG WEAPON, FIRE ON MY MARK!
https://thedonald.win/p/11QRtYLIIu/the-big-weapon/c/
CALL AN ANBULENCE CALL AN ANBULENCE
...BUT NOT FOR ME
This was the plan the entire time. Stop fretting.
Isn't it actually a good thing? Time is of the essence, so the faster things get to the top court the better. Dicking around in the lower courts is a waste of time no matter what they rule.
Actually, it's what I wanted to see happen. The uncertainty has been removed here; the court went with laches. This can go to SCOTUS without a problem. It's going to be an opinion well worth reading and one for the history books.
Reddit faggots are light years behind this place.
People have been talking here for a few weeks about how this is heading to the supreme court. You can't go to the supreme court with nothing to talk about now can you?
Their reasoning is basically “you waited until you lost lmao”
What a bunch of partisan shits.
I know I read somewhere a court said nothing could be done before the election because there was no “injury”. So once it all goes down they say you should have done something sooner?
Yes, it’s called being a democrat
It's called the four stage strategy:
Stage 1: There's no problem Stage 2: There may be a problem, but it's too early to do anything about it Stage 3: Maybe we should do something about this problem, but there's nothing we can do. Stage 4: There was something we could have done, but it's too late now
And Gore won every challenge before Bush brought it to the Supremes. This is so much bigger. Someone better realize what is being set up to happen here if justice does not prevail.
One of the plaintiffs is someone that won which means he could lose if the case goes in his favor. This works well in the plaintiffs favor on the case.
Weren't 2 of the judges republican? It was a 7-0 ruling...does that mean the republican judges are getting paid off by the deep state? This is way too fishy.
Also it's not exactly fair for a campaign to have to spend money on lawsuits before an election. They should be devoting all resources to the campaign. They would have just been thrown out before the election anyway. These guys are hacks.
They’ll take it up to the Supreme Court then. The doctrine of laches this court applied is sort of a “you waited too long to sue” doctrine. Not sure that really should apply for constitutional questions. The issue they are raising is that the election was conducted according to a new law that had not finished going through the amendment process, instead of the existing law on the books.
Also, going to SCOTUS isn’t guaranteed. But given the importance of the issue here, I’d imagine SCOTUS would grant cert and take the case.
Can you explain the heli meme?
Fuck the cringe helicopters.
Fuck South American meme solutions.
Throw them into The Grand Canyon and feed the wildlife. There's a train depot there standing by ready for the thousands and thousands of fake election participants.
AMERICA not SOUTH AMERICA
All eyes on island-hopper John Roberts
Even the Justice that wrote the concurring/ dissenting opinion seems to go along with "laches is a bullshit cop out".
https://twitter.com/Elaijuh/status/1332827481951363077/photo/1
There must be grieved parties to file a lawsuit. That is the first question a judge will ask. If they would have filed a lawsuit in 2019 when the mail-in ballot laws were changed - it would have been kicked out because there were no grieved parties. This is the first election since the law change. NOW we have grieved parties (2020 voters). Lawsuit filed - SCOPA says we weren't timely. They're playing games.
Democrats will always put party before country
For anyone getting ready to doom, remember something: every lower court sided with Gore.
Yep and got spanked by SCOTUS
The corruption was in with them even then, I guess. Crazy.
also remember: STOP DOOMING.
source brah ???
Didn't expect them to just roll over and die. The partisan BS continues. Rule of Law doesn't apply to Democrats.
Civil War is coming in January. Get ready
So tired of this stupid fucking meme. Fuck off with that shit
Conservatives have jobs, shit to do. What civil war will happen? None. It's fucking dumb thing to say.
How about focusing on DA races and midterm elections
Yes, because your job is SO fUCKING IMPORTANT during a real war, fuck outta here.
Faggots like this cause us to be weak.
Your dumb ass larp is the problem.
Get some DAs elected that will prosecute ANTIFA
Gee, I don't know. Maybe because we focused on the Presidential election... and actually won it straight up.
So, let me ask you. Let's say we do focus on DA races and midterm elections, and win them straight up also. But... because of election fraud, the fraudster candidates actually get seated instead of the rightful winners. Then what will you suggest? We focus on the 2024 election?
Do you get where this is going?
If you lose this election, you lose America. That's all there is to it.
All you have to do is look at history. When a new king takes a throne, the first thing they do is secure the throne. They imprison and execute anyone who has a valid claim to the throne or the capability to take it. That's what the court system and election system are in the USA. They will never again be valid. They will become mirrors of courts and elections in communist dictatorships. They exist only as a show.
That's why Trump MUST win NOW.
The DA's are the ones who allowed the election fraud, you have to start at the ground level.
It has been ignored too long. Traffic here for midterm races was nil two years ago. This is the result.
For the current situation, go after the money, the rest will follow
Do you really have a job? Or are you prevented from working by Democrat and RINO governors?
I'm getting paid, but it is miserable to not be allowed to work on interesting problems with other humans.
If there's a callup, I'll be there.
America today is one where laws don't matter because Democrats are always always always partisans first.
When enforcing the law and when adjudicating it.
That's why it's time for us to actually use force. I'm ready to 'correct' some Marxists
People get upset and I understand it’s a touchy subject but we can’t keep watching our country falling without doing something. We may have to use force eventually. There comes a time when there are no other options unless we want to be slaves and have all of our freedoms stripped.
Our opposition acts so incredulously because conservatives & moderates don't show an iota of physical anger. The last time Republicans 'rioted' was 2000 when the Republicans rushed a precinct to stop recounts. And it worked
I hope these Supreme Court justices realize they're bringing us closer to war and I'm personally ready for it
You are confused. This was a PA State Supreme Court ruling, not SCOTUS. SCOTUS is up next.
I stand with you
Still have the Supreme Court. But if that shit goes south, it’s gonna be a select few that will opt to kick things off. Then the rest either fall in line or step aside.
I'm ready for it, time to remove commies from the gene pull.
Off to SCOTUS it goes. We knew that's where it was headed, but it really is disheartening to see so many politicians along the way either be partisan hacks, or afraid to stand up for the constitution, or go against the establishment, or go against the deep-state, or all the above.
If it comes down to a 1776 level fight, the enemy is showing us who they are. We all should pray it doesn't get to that. If need be, this is my hill. This is where I will draw my line.
It does feel good to be on the right side of history. Let's pray SCOTUS isn't too fucked to be a beacon of justice and put the commie pricks on notice.
Are we will having the legislature pick electors?
Watch the GOP get paralyzed when it comes down to it.
This is what I am afraid of, the GOP is chock full of spineless pussies.
Greed, not fear, drives RINO's and Demonrats.
Just let them know they should fear us more than they fear the pussies of antifa.
Whatever happens, I've been expecting one of the major parties to die after this year. Both parties have been destabilized by the emergence of Obama and Trump over their parties' management.
Of course, there will be "another" major party, but membership is going to shift around.
If the Democrats succeed in stealing the presidency, I expect the Republicans to disintegrate, with a core forming around Trump and attracting pro-American Democrats, while globalist Republicans complete their transition to the Democrats.
If the Republicans prevail, the Democrats will likely jettison their gerontocracy and solidify around policies that target their core constituencies of the ultra-rich and ultra-poor (and ultra-confused). Remains to be seen how they would remain relevant as a fringe party. Perhaps they will repeat what happened to the Whigs in the 1850s.
PA has some spine to it. At least compared to some other states in question.
Totally not going to be surprised if they cuck out, pretending it's the "noble" thing to do
I wish there was a way to tell them there's more of us than them... and we'll let them into the American party when the dust clears.
Nah. When the dust clears they'll all be dead.
I wish there was a way to send this out loud and clear...
"Can't buck up people's courage, by telling them their outnumbered or that they're not welcome in the Big Republican Tent.
Nor can DJT get Republican Electors if people are constantly talking about spliting the party, it's way more toxic than "concern trolling" and way more traitorous than RINOs. What's worse someone who pretends to be a Republican, or one who's advocating destroying/spliting the party whom DJT is the head of?
Too much angnst and fear and misplaced energy, in short too many people acting like Democrats. Focus & Discipline. HOLD THE LINE!"
We have a serious gap in leadership (training) around here for years for all kinds of reasons; and it got worse when we lost so many of our NCO types and others with the Hard Drive from Hell all over this DOM, making it unsafe for so many who have/had careers with leadership skills.
LONG LIVE OUR REPUBLIC!! VOTE & JOIN REPUBLICAN TO SAVE OUR REPUBLIC! MAGA On!
There will BE no GOP if they get another 4 years.
Yes.
WIN&WIN PLAN! Keep it going Pedes. SEND IT ALONG!
https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8EhtERu/for-everyone-who-wants-djtpence-/
And Get your Republican State Legislatures to appoint their DJT/Pence Electors!
With a little help from SCOTUS.
A resolution is being proposed, but I think they arent even going to give it a floor vote.
Too many rinos there
Kelly said this morning that they were democrats but he hope they would rise above that. I guess not.
The Notorious RBG is Daid. And cuck Roberts can’t help them.
Soon President Trump will be taking the oath of office heralding in his second term.
https://thedonald.win/p/11QS2z2VLd/joes-inauguration-in-fantasyland/c/
This ruling is a joke. They're saying that they waited too long to file the case, but if they did it BEFORE the election they would have said there was no injury and kicked it out as well. This is a first year law school concept and these "judges" are a disgrace to their profession.
TLDR: Justice is dead in PA.
those judges are compromised and eager to fulfill the will of their overseers.
Exactly why I have zero confidence in courts saving this country, even SCOTUS. I would have more faith in ten thousand patriots from this website in doing more good for this country than courts ever could.
MAGA LAVA is the answer.
Makes Hawaii useful, too.
Hawaii Judge rules volcanoes are now illegal
Zombie apocalypse
It's almost an impressively bad ruling.
Trump has not even revealed the NSA captured coms or the details of the server farm raid.
HOLD THE LINE
SCOTUS can save the country....if not, the people will do it ourselves.
I am fairly certain the Bush vs. Gore was a mess in the Florida supreme court and then ended up in the US Supreme Court. The Florida court then, like the Pennsylvania court now was a den of partisan hackery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
How nice that the FL govs were able to replace a bunch due to their corruption!
Lawyer here. Didn’t read the decision, but if PA Supreme Court is using laches to essentially kill a State constitution dispute, that’s a crazy method for dispatching a meritorious claim that is based on the SECOND highest law of the land in that state. It's potentially akin to saying that there is a violation of the state constitution, but plaintiff "slept on his rights" and the action would now cause prejudice or injury to the defendant due to the lateness.
For this decision to survive, SCOTUS would need to agree that you can simply use equitable remedies, like a bullshit laches defense, to ignore state constitutional mandates in a way that acts to violate the federal constitution. That's why I’m not buying the argument that SCOTUS lacks jurisdiction on a future appeal for this case because this dispute about the state constitution is intertwined with federal constitutional mandates - SCOTUS should arguably be able to decide whether the State is satisfying its obligations under the federal Constitution here, whether the state can simply ignore state constitution violations using equitable defenses on this narrow question.
State Legislatures essentially govern the methods of the election locally. If the state has a local constitution, passed by the state Legislature, those laws must faithfully be executed, with no deviation, nor should a defense of laches be applicable to a dispute involving a core function of our national government, as this then becomes a matter of compliance with the requirements of the federal constitution, because the very notion that the state legislature governs is dictated by the federal constitutional, with SCOTUS being the ultimate body reviewing said compliance under the doctrine of Judicial Review, regardless of whether there is an equal protection issue.
My pleasure! Thanks.
It would probably be consolidated with the other cases moving up to SCOTUS. And no, this is simply one state's constitutional violation, this case alone doesn't bring Trump the presidency. But this is a very straightforward argument to knock out Pennsylvania. No need to prove fraud or irregularities.
Let's go Supreme Court!
The main decision is typical technicality bullshit that activist judges pull whenever their commie feelz get hurt. The concurring/ dissenting opinion is interesting.
https://twitter.com/Elaijuh/status/1332827481951363077/photo/1
As I understand it, the Justice is basically saying, "Get bent on your invalidating votes remedy, but your constitutional challenge has merit"
The uphill battle on this in all courts is, right thing or not, no one wants to be "that guy" who overturned millions of votes. In inescapable outcome of doing so- even though I personally think it MUST be done- is going be like setting off a nuke in every U.S. city simultaneously.
I've said before, all those riots and cities burning... did you think that was for a dead drug addict? Nope. It was a threat and preview of what would happen on a much grander scale if the free shit army does get its way. No judge is going to say it, but you can be damn sure that it is influencing their opinion.
They are going to riot, even if they win. The main difference is that in that scenario, we would be out there rioting back.
These corrupt judges and politicians better think carefully.
Agreed.
I have been saying repeatedly that we need to make sure that legislators, courts, etc. clearly understand that we will not allow this to get swept under the rug and gain understanding that their "leadership" is whatever Party flunky they've been bowing to, but The People.
Courts will be particularly hard since they have no real accountability to The People
When Trump wins, we go out and celebrate using all of our inalienable rights.
IF things get nasty & commies come out, we use all of our inalienable rights.
and you can bet your ass that their is some built up rage that these ANTIFA/BLM slap dicks are not ready for.....the gloves will come off and everything is fair game at that point.
SCOTUS will make one of the most important ruling in American history in the upcoming weeks. Be ready either way, but I'm still confident this goes the way of justice and Trump prevails.
It will be fine. People here tend to lack faith in Trump's plan. I don't know why.
People should start to assemble in front of court houses and state legislatures, or rather, should've started two weeks ago. But as with getting guns, "the best time to get one was back then, the second best time is right now". Locals need to man up and start organizing if there is nobody else doing it. I get that the right "has jobs and families and the left has no jobs and so much free time at their hands" yadda yadda yadda. But we also have jobless people, or pensioners, older pedes with kids out of the house, who could start organizing "the resistance".
If they can steal an election where Trump was ahead by 800k votes, then what's the point in voting anymore? I'm ready to hang these bastards.
Pretty much. If they get away with it we no longer have a reason to be a country.
Reminder: In Bush vs Gore every single case was thrown out until it got to SCOTUS.
So sick of this nonsense.
Stop dooming. The case needed to get thrown out so that we have a path to SCOTUS.
I get it. I’m just so sick of Democrats and their bullshit.
welcome to the party, pal!
there's a ton of us an we're MAD AS HELL.
yeah fuck those godamn snowflakes
Does that mean we now go to SCOTUS? So is that a good thing?
1776
It's explicitly up to the states to determine how to run their own elections. If a state's highest court says everything changed legally and the election was fine (even if it wasn't), the SCOTUS shouldn't in theory really have any business forcing the state to change how it runs its elections.
To put the shoe on the other foot, the same logic people are asking for here could be used to say, force conservative states to forgo voter ID, allow illegal immigrants to vote, etc. if the SCOTUS was left-leaning. A left-leaning court would do stuff like that anyway, but conservative justices seem to like to play by the rules even when it hurts them in the end.
Except that this is for a federal election for president. The federal constitution applies. PA can still run its statewide elections like a banana republic but not at the expense of other states when voting for president.
12th Amendment text:
"The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
Minor modifications to this found in the 20th amendment: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxx
Wong. The SCOTUS has every right to get involved if there is overstepping done on FEDERAL elections, especially if the overstepping can hurt other states as well.
You need to stop spreading bad information, or just not spreading any at all.
SCOTUS comes into play when federal guarantees are violated - like equality of the vote, such that legitimate voters don't have their votes diluted by automatically generated ballots. "Curing" of ballots offered in Democrat strongholds that weren't available to residents elsewhere.
Of course, should a state legislature choose to allocate its electors, as the constitution permits, they may be called upon to confirm the process is equitable to the voters.
The case involves the federal-level election of president.
This election effects other states, not just PA.
Thus, it is a federal issue.
Same.
There certainly things you can do that make you opinion known other than vote. Show a little imagination.
The whole court system is cucked. Might as well get ready to take to the streets.
On to SCOTUS?
Alright, they are traitors. Now what? Everybody just seems to accept that, expecting SCOTUS to save us. If that doesn't happen, though, the time for protests will be over, as we can't very much protest "our" SCOTUS full of Trump picks. Now would be a good time to protest against the PA SC.
I can already see the Hitler in the bunker memes from the "Untergang" movie. "Once this goes to SCOTUS, everything will be alright." - "Mein Fuhrer, SCOTUS just ruled. They ... they couldn't find any wrongdoing." etc.
So what now?
Supreme court.
You can't go to the supreme court empty handed. This site knew this was making its way there for weeks.
When they start talking about proscription lists, that is absolutely true.
It's afraaaaaaaaaid. That denial from the PA supreme court is making them part of the election fraud in the eyes of the federal Supreme Court. They are proving our point. We caught them cheating an election.
That’s how I see this. It’s like a big stamp they just placed on their foreheads lol
God everytime I see something get thrown out my anxiety goes up.
I'm anxious too - it's the greatest peril to our democracy and way of life I have experienced.
I would gave been surprised if they did not throw it out.
On to SCOTUS...pronto.
For the full article: https://archive.is/hJvb9
The courts argument was that "They didn't file it in a timely manner". OKAY so violating the constitution is OKAY if you do it and someone complains afterwards.
Not only that they tossed ALL other petitions too (those being cases) pre-emptively and with prejudice. This is your courts on Liberalism folks! They will REFUSE to even hear cases because "Should have complained earlier!"
Chief Justice Thomas noted... that the [] suit “posed troublesome questions about the constitutional validity of the new mail-in voting scheme.” Still, they concluded: “There has been too much good-faith reliance, by the electorate, on the no-excuse mail-in voting regime … to warrant judicial consideration of the extreme and untenable remedies proposed”.
These are not judges. They’re barely men.
"yes they stole the election but it's too big to overturn"
“There has been too much good-faith reliance, by the electorate, on the no-excuse mail-in voting regime"
So what he is saying here, is none of the judges have the nuts to tell the people of their state that their votes will be disregarded. They are afraid of the backlash. They are not doing their jobs which is to uphold the law. No surprise. On to an unbiased authority at the Federal level !
Why make up negativity like that?
Can you not at least wait a few days to throw your hands up? It’s not healthy to be that negative. There’s still reason for optimism.
Riggers at all levels, whether in the legislatures, the courts, or the governors' mansions, will always rig. That's what they do. Especially when the riggers are funded by the Chicoms.
Oops. I might be at risk now. I upset the Chicoms. According to this Ruqqus post, I can be arrested if I go to China. https://ruqqus.com/+ChinaSucks/post/4zkp/i-smell-something-fishy-going-on