1614
Comments (27)
sorted by:
43
Mooma 43 points ago +43 / -0

So stupid if the judge. He basically rules the voting is a federal issue, now there can be no complaining when federal judges rule on it.

18
Sniper77 18 points ago +18 / -0

Didn't he basically say this case belongs in the state court and she filed too late?

35
WindyCityBluez [S] 35 points ago +35 / -0

Her responce was that similar cases were brought up in other courts and it was undetermined in circuit Court who has jurisdiction. If anything trump has done, he has certainly pulled back the curtain to show the world how fucked up our country is. Sad

8
deleted 8 points ago +9 / -1
6
QueMalaHarris 6 points ago +6 / -0

The problem is no one wants to follow any rules and everyone is afraid to be the one who’s name gets put in the papers

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
1
Southern_Belle 1 point ago +1 / -0

Or whose car blows up.

1
TheThreeSeashells 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wait until they see some of the "rules" that get "broken" should this not be corrected by SCOTUS.

2
OGpsywar 2 points ago +2 / -0

just btw, the video wont play, and chasing it to its url it won't play there either, and there are no comments section, and there is no information, or uploader.

Blank, and blank, and blank, and blank.

Stop using those commies. 🐸

2
WindyCityBluez [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Youtube made it private. Also, bunch of audio BS towards the end and hard to hear.

1
EdisonHwy 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yep, you nailed it.

If anything trump has done, he has certainly pulled back the curtain to show the world how fked up our country is. Sad**

9
deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0
5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
15
BillBarrsSkelatons 15 points ago +15 / -0

If anything, he’s setting a precedent that should a state engage in fraud and as a result disenfranchise other states, that state can be held liable by all other citizens of those states disenfranchised.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
6
mdave88 6 points ago +6 / -0

Video unavailable :(

3
marsajane1949 3 points ago +4 / -1

The elections are done on a state level. He absolutely has every right to do decide on a ruling. He wouldnt be ruling on the federal election. Only what went on in his state.

3
Gesirisi 3 points ago +3 / -0

"Can Drumpf even win the election if I rule in your favor?"

3
deleted 3 points ago +6 / -3
2
networkingkyle 2 points ago +2 / -0

404'd

1
yanksali 1 point ago +1 / -0

A federal court has no jurisdiction over a federal election? Did the judge actually go to law school?

1
yanksali 1 point ago +1 / -0

The SC is a federal court, it made a decision in Bush v Gore. How can any federal judge a federal court had no jurisdiction over a federal election? It is absurd.

1
BillDStrong 1 point ago +1 / -0

Each state has its own Supreme Court. This is the state SC, I believe.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Liberty4All 1 point ago +1 / -0

Excuses we have heard from various judges when dismissing election fraud lawsuits:

*You have no standing because you haven't been injured yet, since the election hasn't been certified. *Counting is still going on / You have to wait for certification to sue. *You should have filed in state court. *You should have filed in federal court. *Your suit is moot because the election has already been certified (aka, you should have sued before certification) *You should have sued before the election.

Has any judge actually looked at evidence of fraud, or have any looked at the key constitutional argument that underlies several of these cases - that legislatures, and legislatures alone, have the authority to determine election procedures?

0
RU_joe_king 0 points ago +1 / -1

no such thing as a Federal election, until the electors vote.