I don't know. AZ Republicans have always seemed so milquetoast to me.
I'm really not worrying about any of this stuff. I have full confidence in the Supreme Court and still am convinced that has been the strategy and the end result from the start. The preponderance of evidence (not proof, but evidence) has reached a critical level that the SCOTUS has to tackle it. And so much of it directly relates to 2000 rulings.
I know what people think, but I can even see Chief Justice Roberts going with the majority on a lot of this stuff. I've never thought he was "compromised", simply weak and afraid of challenging anything he sees as precedence (incapable of taking responsibility or using his authority). Well he gets a big heap of precedence here. His weakness should force him to side with the majority.
How could it have the strategy from the start, if we didn’t even have the Supreme Court until RBG officially went to hell a few months ago? You may say ‘by the start I mean since the election’, but Trump knew there would be election fraud long before then. He could not possibly have been relying on a Supreme Court knowing RGB may rule on it - it would be a likely 5-4 against us.
Well a few things. Part of that strategy was campaigning extremely hard, which they did, in order to bring out a record number of us. Don't forget, Trump broke every record not only in Republican history, but presidential candidate history when it comes to turn out.
Second, I don't think the Trump team expected the Democrats to attempt to overcome that, and I am suspecting the Democrats didn't actually expect that turnout either. So either the Democrats actually did decide to say "F it" late at night on Nov 3rd and go to the extremes they did in the fraud, or their machine simply got away from them. Either way it went from the usual level of fraud to WAAAAY over the top. Thus it became obvious. Maybe the Trump team didn't expect them to do that, I surely didn't, but it also is what kills the Dems here.
3rd, the points of the case the Trump team were prepared to bring to SCOTUS, if the Democrats managed to cause contested election results, are the exact same that Roberts had argued in 2000. Roberts is a weakling as a Chief Justice, but his major weakness is precedence. He couldn't argue against the merits of such cases without setting new precedent opposing precedent he was involved in making before, which would turn him into one of the most disregarded justices to ever sit on the court. Never underestimate the egos of these people.
Does any of that, or any plan at all, guarantee success? No. What Justice Ginsburg's passing away did was all but solidify it though. They don't even need Roberts now.
So yes, the primary plan has always been to let SCOTUS make a fair ruling in the event the Democrats stole the election. The goal of the campaign before that point could be reached was to increase turnout to such high levels that the typical, or even higher than typical fraud couldn't overcome it. It did overcome it, but exposed itself by doing so.
So, most top schools in the country, and especially law schools, are "uber leftist" as you put it.
I am sure ACB could have gone to Liberty University, or maybe Hillsdale to teach. And also nobody would know who she is and she could never be on SCOTUS.
She's never shown a proclivity for activist jurisprudence, and I wouldn't expect her to do so now, just because "well she taught at this one school and the faculty loved her".
That argument is based on multiple logical fallacies. First that because she taught at A school, she is A. Second, an argument from ignorance of how she has actually ruled in a majority of cases or how or what she taught at A school. Third, the old fashioned non-sequitur, that following the same path any legal professional seeking the higher court has to travel somehow makes her tainted, while equally disregarding that every other member of the court, who has demonstrated time and again to be reliable, had to travel the same path she did.
Give me a break man. Your arguments are garbage, intended to cast doubt on everything. You add nothing to the discussion.
I admit I had some doubts about ACB because she cited jacobson in order to side with the fat fuck governor of IL to keep the lockdowns going. That was a big red flag for me because it was a bad decision because it cited a terrible precedent to justify denying citizens their rights. Then she recused herself when the PA GOP sued governor wolf of PA for changing the election law, something that's a violation of the US constitution. I'm still mad about that because had she not, then the same safeguards that are in place in Wisconsin and will end up helping throw thousands of fraudulent ballots, would also be in place in Michigan and Pennsylvania. However, she has begun to redeem herself. Her decision to side with the conservatives against Andrew cuomo's communist lockdown measures is a profound step in the right direction. Any judge who sides with liberty against this rule by fiat lockdown is reliable in my view because covid was the pretext to violate our rights as American citizens, including the franchise. It's time for her to shine. If she rules correctly there I'll just chalk it up to early career mistakes.
She cited it because on legal grounds it was solid. It is solid because she could not force from her bench at the time, a state from making such mandates. It absolutely, like many cases needed to, go to SCOTUS to be resolved. Lower courts generally refrain from setting legal arguments in stone. And other courts were more craven. Her ruling was completely understandable. Not on the merits, but on the position of the court.
The problem with States and SCOTUS is there has to be a "Federal Question". The case didn't provide one. Not clearly. That goes for the other cases you cite.
If you become a federal judge instead of a state judge, you have to reckon with States Rights. And you must require a Federal Question. In other words, that the rulings of a state affect the whole nation, or that the rulings of a state are clearly presented in a fashion that become federally unconstitutional.
It's a high bar. She is a constitutionalist, so she is not going to rule favorably where that bar is not met. There is really nothing in the federal constitution that prevents a state from going crazy with pandemic laws, as long as they follow their own constitutions.
And that is why voting is so important.
We asked for originalist, constitutionalist justices and we got them. They do not always give us what we want. Precisely because of how they rule. Fairly.
I was saw a guy say he was a flag waving, Bible-clinging, gun-toting, America-loving right-wing conservative Idahoan, which makes him what passes for a Democrat there.
I got banned for saying the we should start killing Antifa terrorists...
Actually, I said something like if they wanna make death threats the American people should just kill them first, in response to a post by Andy Ngo, where they threatened to kill him.
Fuck it, though... I don't even care. They are terrorists, that's what happens to terrorists, just ask the military. They have even ACTUALLY killed people, like that veteran in Colorado. Trump has even labeled them a terrorists organization. That's like saying someone should kill ISIS.
Uh, so if you go ahead and pass Act 77 (a law that doesn't amend the constitution), then you might agree that it is by definition an unconstitutional law. Those are bad.
You can declare that election as unconstitutional, and redo the vote for ll the seats, except the Presidency, as their isnt enough time. The other cases will show enough fraud to invalidate them. Then Trump needs to get the Electoral College on board with voting him in. I am not convinced the old guard wants theat, so that is a huge fight, which is what all these state hearings are about.
This is a good strategy, because it gets these state legislators national attention, in a good light, so makes good political sense.
Let’s go Alito!!
Easiest way to flip Pennsylvania, given the foreshadowing by the lower court of how it will rule. Time for the Supremes to enter the building.
The closing statements of the Arizona state legislature from the hearing gives me hope.
I don't know. AZ Republicans have always seemed so milquetoast to me.
I'm really not worrying about any of this stuff. I have full confidence in the Supreme Court and still am convinced that has been the strategy and the end result from the start. The preponderance of evidence (not proof, but evidence) has reached a critical level that the SCOTUS has to tackle it. And so much of it directly relates to 2000 rulings.
I know what people think, but I can even see Chief Justice Roberts going with the majority on a lot of this stuff. I've never thought he was "compromised", simply weak and afraid of challenging anything he sees as precedence (incapable of taking responsibility or using his authority). Well he gets a big heap of precedence here. His weakness should force him to side with the majority.
How could it have the strategy from the start, if we didn’t even have the Supreme Court until RBG officially went to hell a few months ago? You may say ‘by the start I mean since the election’, but Trump knew there would be election fraud long before then. He could not possibly have been relying on a Supreme Court knowing RGB may rule on it - it would be a likely 5-4 against us.
Well a few things. Part of that strategy was campaigning extremely hard, which they did, in order to bring out a record number of us. Don't forget, Trump broke every record not only in Republican history, but presidential candidate history when it comes to turn out.
Second, I don't think the Trump team expected the Democrats to attempt to overcome that, and I am suspecting the Democrats didn't actually expect that turnout either. So either the Democrats actually did decide to say "F it" late at night on Nov 3rd and go to the extremes they did in the fraud, or their machine simply got away from them. Either way it went from the usual level of fraud to WAAAAY over the top. Thus it became obvious. Maybe the Trump team didn't expect them to do that, I surely didn't, but it also is what kills the Dems here.
3rd, the points of the case the Trump team were prepared to bring to SCOTUS, if the Democrats managed to cause contested election results, are the exact same that Roberts had argued in 2000. Roberts is a weakling as a Chief Justice, but his major weakness is precedence. He couldn't argue against the merits of such cases without setting new precedent opposing precedent he was involved in making before, which would turn him into one of the most disregarded justices to ever sit on the court. Never underestimate the egos of these people.
Does any of that, or any plan at all, guarantee success? No. What Justice Ginsburg's passing away did was all but solidify it though. They don't even need Roberts now.
So yes, the primary plan has always been to let SCOTUS make a fair ruling in the event the Democrats stole the election. The goal of the campaign before that point could be reached was to increase turnout to such high levels that the typical, or even higher than typical fraud couldn't overcome it. It did overcome it, but exposed itself by doing so.
I assume you mean "ACB".
So, most top schools in the country, and especially law schools, are "uber leftist" as you put it.
I am sure ACB could have gone to Liberty University, or maybe Hillsdale to teach. And also nobody would know who she is and she could never be on SCOTUS.
She's never shown a proclivity for activist jurisprudence, and I wouldn't expect her to do so now, just because "well she taught at this one school and the faculty loved her".
That argument is based on multiple logical fallacies. First that because she taught at A school, she is A. Second, an argument from ignorance of how she has actually ruled in a majority of cases or how or what she taught at A school. Third, the old fashioned non-sequitur, that following the same path any legal professional seeking the higher court has to travel somehow makes her tainted, while equally disregarding that every other member of the court, who has demonstrated time and again to be reliable, had to travel the same path she did.
Give me a break man. Your arguments are garbage, intended to cast doubt on everything. You add nothing to the discussion.
I admit I had some doubts about ACB because she cited jacobson in order to side with the fat fuck governor of IL to keep the lockdowns going. That was a big red flag for me because it was a bad decision because it cited a terrible precedent to justify denying citizens their rights. Then she recused herself when the PA GOP sued governor wolf of PA for changing the election law, something that's a violation of the US constitution. I'm still mad about that because had she not, then the same safeguards that are in place in Wisconsin and will end up helping throw thousands of fraudulent ballots, would also be in place in Michigan and Pennsylvania. However, she has begun to redeem herself. Her decision to side with the conservatives against Andrew cuomo's communist lockdown measures is a profound step in the right direction. Any judge who sides with liberty against this rule by fiat lockdown is reliable in my view because covid was the pretext to violate our rights as American citizens, including the franchise. It's time for her to shine. If she rules correctly there I'll just chalk it up to early career mistakes.
She cited it because on legal grounds it was solid. It is solid because she could not force from her bench at the time, a state from making such mandates. It absolutely, like many cases needed to, go to SCOTUS to be resolved. Lower courts generally refrain from setting legal arguments in stone. And other courts were more craven. Her ruling was completely understandable. Not on the merits, but on the position of the court.
The problem with States and SCOTUS is there has to be a "Federal Question". The case didn't provide one. Not clearly. That goes for the other cases you cite.
If you become a federal judge instead of a state judge, you have to reckon with States Rights. And you must require a Federal Question. In other words, that the rulings of a state affect the whole nation, or that the rulings of a state are clearly presented in a fashion that become federally unconstitutional.
It's a high bar. She is a constitutionalist, so she is not going to rule favorably where that bar is not met. There is really nothing in the federal constitution that prevents a state from going crazy with pandemic laws, as long as they follow their own constitutions.
And that is why voting is so important.
We asked for originalist, constitutionalist justices and we got them. They do not always give us what we want. Precisely because of how they rule. Fairly.
what them niggas in az say?
Some real inspirational patriot type shit
Wait wasn't Idaho totally red? Dafuq
Only Maine and Nebraska split electoral votes.
They split Maine, not NH
I was saw a guy say he was a flag waving, Bible-clinging, gun-toting, America-loving right-wing conservative Idahoan, which makes him what passes for a Democrat there.
Remember, Kavanaugh, Roberts, and ACB helped Bush in his lawsuit against Gore in 2000.
And Clarence has been waiting for you, Biden.
I got banned for saying the we should start killing Antifa terrorists...
Actually, I said something like if they wanna make death threats the American people should just kill them first, in response to a post by Andy Ngo, where they threatened to kill him.
Fuck it, though... I don't even care. They are terrorists, that's what happens to terrorists, just ask the military. They have even ACTUALLY killed people, like that veteran in Colorado. Trump has even labeled them a terrorists organization. That's like saying someone should kill ISIS.
Resurrection act? Create an army of zombies?
Technically that would be reanimation.
I'm riding a 30 day from Facebook. Never been so bored as when I can't argue with people who are wrong.
They are increasing their efforts to keep the truth from being seen or shared.
Here's a state senator (D) pointing out that PA needs to amend their constitution in order to have no-excuse absentee voting.
Uh, so if you go ahead and pass Act 77 (a law that doesn't amend the constitution), then you might agree that it is by definition an unconstitutional law. Those are bad.
Damn at least fucking ONE Republican. Good on you Ted.
So proud of him.
Didn't they ignore Altos order? Was that another state?
That was also PA. Our case in PA is the strongest, but their courts are the most corrupt.
Ted Cruz going from 'Lying Ted' to literally the only Republican in congress with any semblance of testicles is a true underdog story
Thats an Animorphs book id read!
He grew that beard and became a man.
💯
50+ Republican senators and only one tweets, “gee, maybe we should look into the fraud.”
What the hell good is this party? Do-nothing slackasses.
That’s what this country has, two parties. One is represented by the ass, the other is a slackass.
We need to back Ted Cruz up here. If he gets positive feedback then more Senators might step forward to support Trump.
He really is LION TED!
Lion Ted!
Ted Cruz is one of the only people I trust. He can watch my back with a knife in his hand and I won't be watching to make sure he doesn't stab it.
Lion Ted!!
Is this sean Parnell's suit or the president's suit? Both are important but I want both to be heard as they're two shots.
Have faith! There is a reason God sent RGB to hell a short while back!
Nothing we do can "steal" the election. That gives the Left's illegal actions too much credit.
You can declare that election as unconstitutional, and redo the vote for ll the seats, except the Presidency, as their isnt enough time. The other cases will show enough fraud to invalidate them. Then Trump needs to get the Electoral College on board with voting him in. I am not convinced the old guard wants theat, so that is a huge fight, which is what all these state hearings are about.
This is a good strategy, because it gets these state legislators national attention, in a good light, so makes good political sense.