184
Comments (18)
sorted by:
32
TrumpTrollMaster 32 points ago +33 / -1

This is the opposition filing.

20
AyChiXuaxua 20 points ago +20 / -0

This is, you are correct. This is the response to the Republican Party of PA asking for a Writ of Certiorari to the SCOTUS. Not sure why you are being downvoted. FUCKING READ THE BRIEF!!!

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

They are being sued so they file in opposition.

2
vicentezo04 2 points ago +2 / -0

How the hell people have time to make these posts but not even read a single paragraph of whatever they posted boggles my mind

6
WeCantHaveNiceThings 6 points ago +6 / -0

The demonrat response is so blatantly dishonest I really don't see things going their way.

6
terablelizard 6 points ago +6 / -0

Had to come to this site to find this out lol

5
Nomad1 5 points ago +5 / -0

This is it. Let's see if SCOTUS will defend the Republic.

4
RedCoast31 4 points ago +5 / -1

Stand by and stand ready for escalation.

But still go protests and make those fucking RINO's nervous.

3
juvenal 3 points ago +4 / -1

Yep. We can already assume Roberts out on that count.

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

After reading this I think the PA Supreme Court has a good case here, but I don't think Trump was relying on this particular battle

7
Morokei 7 points ago +7 / -0

Good case?

10,000 vote gap only so moot? No. First more than 10,000. Second, ignores other vote problems.

Standing issue bogus. Why can’t a political party have standing to enforce the US Constitution?

Petitioner correct on legal merits.

1
Undo1913 1 point ago +1 / -0

This document is basically Chicom BS justifying the fraud due to the Chicom Fauci-funded virus.

“ Petitioner seeks a radical change in the law—one that would force federal courts to review state court in- terpretations of state law, and that would require the reversal of a decision issued by this Court just five years ago. See Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona In- dep. Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U.S. 787, 817-818 (2015) (AIRC). Petitioner advances that request, more- over, in an idiosyncratic case that arose from the sin- gular, unprecedented disruptions caused by COVID- 19, a spike in voting by mail, and an unanticipated slowdown in the operation of the United States Postal Service. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, when pre- sented with that unique circumstance, fulfilled its role under the Pennsylvania Constitution and Election Code in ordering a remedy designed to avoid the disen- franchisement of Pennsylvania voters. See e.g. In re General Election-1985, 531 A.2d 836, 838–39 (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. 1987).”

0
TylerD 0 points ago +2 / -2

This seems to be the 3 day extension and the suit says there were only 10k votes that came in delayed. This will most likely succeed, but unless they mixed in the ballots, it will not change the result unfortunately.

3
viridianfrog22 3 points ago +3 / -0

this is opposition filing

2
Morokei 2 points ago +2 / -0

It would change the count in combination with other problems like dead or out of state voters. Also if that asshole AG says 10k it must be more. 100,000 votes comes in after the election but only 10,000 in 3 days??