6048
Comments (635)
sorted by:
439
jimboscott 439 points ago +440 / -1

I would think before noon today.

Today is the safe harbor deadline. Alito moved the filing deadline from tomorrow to today for some reason and the safe harbor deadline might have been it.

Perhaps the SCOTUS wanted to see something in order to issue some kind of injunction that provides more time to sort all of this out.

176
deleted 176 points ago +180 / -4
245
watt 245 points ago +245 / -0

A date that will live in.... umm, you know the thing.

146
deleted 146 points ago +146 / -0
81
trumpORbust 81 points ago +81 / -0

Surprised China not selling us defective guns on Amazon

51
deleted 51 points ago +51 / -0
29
k3k4p3d3 29 points ago +29 / -0

But they did. I remember reading articles posted on here about Chinese made weapons being seized in Tennessee over the summer.

11
KingMoonRacer 11 points ago +12 / -1

Not weapons, parts.

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/10800-assault-weapons-parts-seized-cbp-louisville

Happened just as the NFAC started trending.

10
Marius 10 points ago +10 / -0

Hell I bought a Chinese SKS back in 1992 and still have it.

10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
2
Saltynips 2 points ago +2 / -0

Those weren't weapons they were just "parts" the article wasn't very specific.

6
Auroraalpha 6 points ago +6 / -0

Check out anything owned by Freedom Group.....bet they sold out. Anytime you see some generic Capital Management firm buyout and manage gun brands, its probably run by globalists and taken in chicom investment money.

5
Skepticconservative 5 points ago +5 / -0

I would never put that Chinese garbage in any of my guns.

26
MastaJoda 26 points ago +27 / -1

Dude, I bought a temporary plate carrier to do some heavy training with my platoon of goons, and that pos fell apart after one day. The weight of my load of ammo ripped the whole front off when I was moving from glasshouse (temp wood construction) to glasshouse during my first go round. 🤣 I bought the damn thing thinking I could beat it to fuck training and have my better constructed, Made in the USA carrier for go-time. Long story short...fuck Amazon. I pay the extra to buy quality, American products from mom and pops shops online or trusted vendors. If you happened to buy a plate carrier from amazon hoping to save money, I suggest doing as ended up doing with the rig. Brush up on your sewing skills (something I learned in the infantry), and reinforce any weak points. If not, it will fall apart the first time you have to sprint in it. Trust me.

11
deleted 11 points ago +11 / -0
2
RoccoNC 2 points ago +2 / -0

What about Condor vests

3
SmoothCyberCriminal 3 points ago +3 / -0

Crye precision makes wonderful carriers. I have the JPC swimmers cut. It’s fantastic

6
3
Junkevil 3 points ago +3 / -0

Thanks for sharing that, made me laugh.

4
mjs001 4 points ago +4 / -0

Plenty of Chinese guns in my local gun shop.

31
vegaspatriot1776 31 points ago +31 / -0

that was in 1941. today, there are at least 3 guns behind every blade of grass. come get some chicoms!

15
deleted 15 points ago +15 / -0
5
vegaspatriot1776 5 points ago +5 / -0

keep checking your local gun stores, and web sites like grabagun.com. i have bought 4 brand new weapons over the past 4 weeks. all were on my bucket list, including a DP-12, Beretta 92X, Shockwave and a Glock 43X. they are out there, you just have to be vigilant.

2
DudeThatCame2Sarnath 2 points ago +2 / -0

Hear, hear on the Beretta. For some reason, many people consider Beretta 92s to be old-fashioned (which they are, but in a good way) and somehow not as good (which they most definitely are not).

So while everybody is snapping up all of the two-toned lime green and chartreuse pocket pistols with the .25" inch barrels and built-in WiFi and Instagram and grips in Rich Corinthian Leather, you will often venture into your local gun shop and see a nice little pile of Beretta 92s, all by themselves in a dark and dusty corner of the shelf, waiting patiently for somebody to take them to their Forever Home.

Sauce: proud new (within the past couple of months at any rate) owner of a Beretta 92 compact LTT and it is a damn fine weapon.

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
4
kc5ods 4 points ago +4 / -0

HELL YES we need a MyRifle M-1!!!!

4
ProdigalPlaneswalker 4 points ago +4 / -0

My Ammo gives commies a permanent night of sleep.

11
deleted 11 points ago +11 / -0
24
deleted 24 points ago +24 / -0
9
ShartMaster 9 points ago +9 / -0

Those are rookie numbers!

You've got to pump those numbers up!

11
fclampazzo 11 points ago +11 / -0

Is it illegal if I set up a table and do gun buybacks myself on the side of the street?

7
vegaspatriot1776 7 points ago +7 / -0

I only have my trusted mossberg 590

i have too many (various platforms) for me and my family members to carry. we have your back pede!

2
Fuck_commies_2024 2 points ago +2 / -0

Damn I want one of those!

8
KillaryBillary 8 points ago +8 / -0

General Tso will give those commie chickens a one way ticket to pain on the Panda Express.

7
IronMaiden 7 points ago +7 / -0

Bill Barr has entered the chat...

1
ItsAFreeCountry 1 point ago +1 / -0

Alert set for the word “chicken”

1
Brooklyn_Patriot_76 1 point ago +1 / -0

herro? shitty wok?

4
BigRedPillMachine 4 points ago +4 / -0

The enemy outnumbers us a paltry 4 to 1, good odds for any American! This day we rescue a world from mysticism and tyranny, and usher in a future brighter than anything we could imagine! Give thanks, men! To Trump, and the brave 75 million. To victory!

2
Minimagamama 2 points ago +2 / -0

Do the Demo 💩🐀🐀🐀 realize it?

23
twodumb2live 23 points ago +23 / -0

Trunalimunumaprzure.

10
nocompromise 10 points ago +10 / -0

Good point

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
16
Shitposter69 16 points ago +16 / -0

Only quartermasters know that whoppers are free on Sunday! C'mon man!

6
SomeGuyOnTheInternet 6 points ago +6 / -0

You should run the ladies floor at your local department store.

3
Shitposter69 3 points ago +3 / -0

I like the young ladies department more because I'll fake a disease and then touch them!

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
5
jshelton5 5 points ago +5 / -0

come on, man!

3
MySidesGoUp 3 points ago +3 / -0

It’s Groundhog Day. Again...

1
540k-Again 1 point ago +2 / -1

You're right. Texas lawsuit as Constitutionally breaking as The Patriot Act; same shock and awe, slight of hand too. Then and now. There just aren't ever enough redpilled elderpedes to hold back the tsunami of the boxing match... which was fixed before the starting galvel rang. Damn deepstate swampy opportunists; theye're sealing their swamp filled, justices seat promotions within the next 20 year cycle. This game has been going on for a few generations now.

It's a damn shame. But it is Groundhog Day.

16
P0keu 16 points ago +17 / -1 (edited)

Your mistake was stickied. :c Haha, no problem.

Luckily pedes aren't completely mentally inept and will be able to understand that TODAY is when Alito will hopefully be giving us that indicator.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
88
KilluminatiAJ 88 points ago +90 / -2

safe harbor date means nothing. the only date that matters is January 20th

37
Sherlocks_Pocket 37 points ago +39 / -2

Correct but it matters in the minds of the public

43
KilluminatiAJ 43 points ago +45 / -2

the public and what the constitution says are two different things.

10
Sherlocks_Pocket 10 points ago +11 / -1

Yes it is!!! Thankfully

6
Skogin 6 points ago +6 / -0

Public opinion / perception is everything.

What the eyes see and the ears hear, the mind believes.

4
Bout2gitsome 4 points ago +4 / -0

Totally agree. Optics matter.👍

3
blackflame7000 3 points ago +3 / -0

This is what Republicans constantly under-estimate. It's clear from the comments above that there are still people that don't get that the left is killing us in the optics game and that's really the only way they are even able to compete. Their ideas are trash but they manage to always claim the moral high ground because 1) it's super easy when you are always giving away other people's things and 2) because republicans blunder all the time at explaining why it's better to teach a man to fish than to give them a fish. Optics matter.

23
MAGAMAN300 23 points ago +24 / -1

75 million or more of us.. More than likely over half of Biden's votes are fake.. So does it really matter??

14
Mavdick96 14 points ago +15 / -1

We are actually 80M+ strong.

3
Skogin 3 points ago +4 / -1

Yes, most people are still failing to adjust our numbers upwards after agreeing that massive fraud stole votes.

1
JackLemon 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yep. Massive vote flipping numbering in the millions.

1
QSWO1 1 point ago +1 / -0

That is not counting our kids.

1
Sherlocks_Pocket 1 point ago +3 / -2

As long as we use the philosophy the founders so clearly laid out we are in our right up to including all measures. But let’s pace ourselves

1
I_Love_45-70_Gov 1 point ago +1 / -0

Pacing ourselves is what got us all in this mess.

Step this shit up, and do it fucking yesterday!

1
Sherlocks_Pocket 1 point ago +1 / -0

Haha. Good point but we don’t need to use force. Yet.

20
vegaspatriot1776 20 points ago +21 / -1

the constitution says, "fuck your feelings."

5
Sherlocks_Pocket 5 points ago +5 / -0

More the Bill of Rights says that. But point taken Pede!

1
kilkidd 1 point ago +1 / -0

Difference is?

1
blackflame7000 1 point ago +1 / -0

Constitution only works if people support it.

2
vegaspatriot1776 2 points ago +2 / -0

we have 85+ million armed americans that are going to ensure the constitution is supported, one way or another.

9
DemsFuckKids 9 points ago +10 / -1

not anymore

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
22
deleted 22 points ago +23 / -1
4
FluhanWu 4 points ago +5 / -1

That's right. Calendars are a social construct. 99% of time scientists agree the world will end in 12 years if we don't combat communism.If the time comes, we will move time. Until then we must continue to move mountains. After, we bring commies to the top and kick them off.

17
Dereliction 17 points ago +17 / -0

It's not nothing. Alito moved it up to prevent a bunch of unnecessary legal wrestling that would occur if things waited until the 9th. He knows what he's doing.

2
JackLemon 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not necessarily.

-13
PresidentErectHunter -13 points ago +10 / -23

Dec 14 Electoral meeting. That date is critical. If 270 votes are counted at that meeting it is all over. House of Representatives is controlled by (D) and they will never reverse that vote.

There is no way Trump can effectively use Executive Action because the military will not support him if 270 votes are cast.

20
artman33 20 points ago +22 / -2

House of Representatives gets one vote per state for electors. So no, the D's will be screwed if we get the R's to fall in line.

6
PresidentErectHunter 6 points ago +7 / -1 (edited)

House of Representatives gets one vote per state for electors. So no, the D's >will be screwed if we get the R's to fall in line.

If the Election is kicked to the House because 270 cannot be reached at Dec 14 meeting. Trump wins 28-22 in Congress because the vote is by State delegation. (R) control 28 of 50 state delegations.

If 270 is reached at the Dec 14 meeting , it goes to Congress for votes from 435 House Representatives. House is Majority (D). Trump loses.

Trump cannot allow 270 to be reached at that Dec 14 meeting.

Right now, there are enough votes for 270 even without Pennsylvania and Georgia.

6
LLegendary 6 points ago +6 / -0

That's only if it isn't contested in court, which it is.

2
artman33 2 points ago +3 / -1

I do really wonder if they can send their electors if the governor wants to send Biden electors and the legislature doesn't want to though... Very weird times we live in. It would seem to me that without the legislature sending on those electors, Biden could never reach 270.

5
PresidentErectHunter 5 points ago +5 / -0 (edited)

do really wonder if they can send their electors if the governor wants to send Biden electors and the legislature doesn't want to though... Very weird times we live in. It would seem to me that without the legislature sending on those electors, Biden could never reach 270.

Which State is this? We have States like PA, AZ, and GA. Most have (R) Governors and all have (R) controlled State Legislatures and they all want to send Biden Electors. They have decided they want to go ahead and certify the fraud results.

Michigan has a (D) Governor and a (R) controlled State Legislature but even the Michigan RINO Legislature is selecting Biden Electors.

The (R) Governors and State Legislatures are all on the same page here... Few Georgia Reps are starting to protest but they are still far from reaching a majority.

4
JackLemon 4 points ago +4 / -0 (edited)

True, but we're not there yet. As has been stated by Bannon several times his sources keep telling him, if one state falls then they all will. The legislators just need a court sanctioned ruling to justify their position to flip for Trump.

That's going to happen.

2
artman33 2 points ago +3 / -1

So war then? I'm OK with that.

2
JackLemon 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's inevitable. Most haven't reached that conclusion yet or are afraid to accept it.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
1
artman33 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ahh I understand.

15
d1dave 15 points ago +15 / -0

Dec. 14th is not critical if States are tied up in court.

3
deleted 3 points ago +4 / -1
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
11
SvixGale 11 points ago +13 / -2

Winning 270 FAKE votes in a FAKE, RIGGED, and STOLEN election isn't going to magically make anyone want to kill commies any less. That includes the military, 1000%

With how Trump has treated them like gold; built them up, given them badly needed upgrades and funding, etc; do YOU think they are any more eager or indifferent to be ruled by a chinese agent like biden? If anything, if the EC betrays us like this, it will further steel everyone's resolve.

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

The Military Industrial Complex.

:-(

0
deleted 0 points ago +5 / -5
2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
5
14
PresidentErectHunter 14 points ago +15 / -1

Correct. That Dec 14 date is not locked in stone.

The point is that Dec 14 meeting cannot be allowed to happen If they vote 270 at that meeting, there is no going back.

Trump must stop that meeting from happening if Courts do not come through this week.

7
DroolingElmo 7 points ago +7 / -0

Scotus Throckmorton decision in 1878 means if there is fraud everything as far as dates is thrown out except one, Noon on January 20th. Until then all courts high and low can hear, process and decide cases based on fraud claims

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

Can it physically be done? Yes. Will it result in a lot of we the people dead or in jail? Also yes. We need the courts to work for us before we charge into the most secured city on the planet.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0 (edited)
3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
46
PoppinKREAM 46 points ago +46 / -0

I take it that Alito has already been suspicious of PA given their ignoring his order before.

I'm cautiously optimistic, but SCOTUS developments thus far have been promising.

9
shadow 9 points ago +9 / -0

I got some sort of PTSD from your name

3
PoppinKREAM 3 points ago +3 / -0

Easiest username grab I could think of when everything was ripe for the taking 😅

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
11
brian4r 11 points ago +11 / -0

Yes, SCOTUS was waiting on a response from the state (PA). Gave them until I think 9am this morning to get it. They are reviewing it as I write this.

4
DroolingElmo 4 points ago +4 / -0

Pennsylvania refused to answer. Its in Alito's hands now

1
brian4r 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wow... noon today is the deadline to put a stay on certifying right?

1
DroolingElmo 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fraud vitiates everything. The only deadline set in stone by the Constitution is Jan 20, 2021 Trump's 2nd inauguration

3
JustInTime2_ 3 points ago +3 / -0

Thanks for posting what I was questioning from earlier readings.

208
deleted 208 points ago +208 / -0
178
deleted 178 points ago +178 / -0
108
g00se2k 108 points ago +108 / -0

"Governed" implies the consent of the people. We are being ruled.

17
deleted 17 points ago +17 / -0
9
LUXURY_USERNAME 9 points ago +10 / -1

likewise, "idiots" implies they don't know what they are doing, they know exactly what they are doing

49
deleted 49 points ago +50 / -1
14
chambers11 14 points ago +15 / -1

If Trump goes scorched earth on the democrats they won’t stand a chance. They’ve manipulated the public through msm for years to believe that they outnumbered us, but without fraud the whole country would most likely be red. Antifa plus a few straggler militias is really all they have. The left is not built for physical conflict and if Trump is successful, their stranglehold on public opinion thru msm should finally be destroyed.

7
PhilippElhaus 7 points ago +7 / -0

There‘s much more consensus among people than what the media tells it. They are a small group and play a smoke & mirror game of sowing division among the vast majority. Add to that all the fraud.

They are truly the enemy of the people.

If SHTF all these networks, their broadcasting stations and the people running/owning them should be one of the first targets.

9
deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0
7
SvixGale 7 points ago +7 / -0

Yep, very well said.

1
thegeeseisleese 1 point ago +1 / -0

The fact they've been able to convince a large portion of the population that Trump is hurting the election process by contesting fraud is insane. Like the argument is "even if there's fraud, overturning an election is bad" and people eat it up. The amount of people willing to turn a blind eye to fraud rather than risk losing any social cool points is absurd. All of this is absurd.

-2
DrWhu -2 points ago +2 / -4

None of this doomer shit, when the tree is watered and Trump has eight more years (for the four stolen by demonrat impeachment BS) we'll have truly made America great again

22
NotDangerousGame 22 points ago +23 / -1

No, we are not governed by idiots. We are ruled by evil men.

6
LazySusan 6 points ago +6 / -0

We need to stop them.

4
Redditcensorsyouandi 4 points ago +4 / -0

Evil cucks

13
IncredibleMrE1 13 points ago +13 / -0

"We totally fucked up the whole system, and if you try to fix it, no one will ever trust you again!"

4
Pepega 4 points ago +4 / -0

i never had any to begin with, only ready to be gained haha

51
MemeWarVeteran69 51 points ago +51 / -0

Such a faggot argument. "We may have broken the law, but if you go after us then in the future it may be used to go after people who didnt"

13
deleted 13 points ago +13 / -0
5
ravonaf 5 points ago +5 / -0

That will literally lead to a civil war. PA is saying they can do what we want no matter what and SCOTUS can't do anything about it. That leaves only ONE remedy left for the people to get Justice.

30
geocitiesuser 30 points ago +30 / -0

Only in clown world is ensuring votes are legal, would result in a "loss of public trust"

Absolute clowns.

9
Pepe-von-Hayek 9 points ago +9 / -0

"Yes, we cheated, but we've lied about it so much that if people found out the truth, they may never trust us again!"

27
deleted 27 points ago +27 / -0
20
wholesomekangz100 20 points ago +21 / -1

They are not scared. They control Antifa. One police response from a neolib and the far-leftists will be back in their basements

24
deleted 24 points ago +24 / -0
4
deleted 4 points ago +5 / -1
10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
1
formerdemfortrump 1 point ago +1 / -0

Interesting. Do you know off hand what was the prominent cases was that was tossed "because no injury occurred?" I lost track of some of the cases.

I don't know why there wasn't a more aggressive response to the Dem lawyers attempting to alter election laws through the courts before November by Republicans. Maybe there was, and I just am not following well enough. I just wished more of these problems could have been addressed before the election.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Xachariah 1 point ago +1 / -0

The counterargument is that anyone attempting to challenge the law must have standing and injury. If anyone tried to challenge the law after it was passed, they'd get thrown out immediately. The court is going with a catch-22 that makes it impossible to ever fight a bad law.

"This new law is bullshit, we want to challenge Act 77."
"The law might be unconstitutional, but it hasn't passed yet. Dismissed"

"This bullshit law was passed, we want to challenge Act 77."
"The law might be unconstitutional, but it hasn't caused any harm yet. Dismissed."

"This bullshit law was in an election, we want to challenge Act 77."
"The law might be unconstitutional, but you weren't in that election. Dismissed."

"This bullshit law was in our election, we want to challenge Act 77."
"The law might be unconstitutional, but it didn't change the outcome of that election. Dismissed."

"This bullshit law was in an election AND cheated it, we want to challenge Act 77."
"The law might be unconstitutional, but it's too late now. Dismissed." <---------- We are here.

1
Centipedealicious 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think it is paraphrasing the argument.

149
40-More-Years 149 points ago +150 / -1

My guess is Alito will grant temporary relief today, and we’ll get the actual ruling from the whole court on Thursday.

Alito has already taken steps previously to separate the ballots, which shows a strong likelihood of how he’s gonna view this case.

66
mrbear10mm 66 points ago +66 / -0

We still need a ruling on that because my state did not separate ballots and we now have testimony claiming ballots were backdated in an effort to subvert the previous order, let alone the fact that those ballots were not separated at all and were in fact counted in spite of said ruling.

I still say that this case is our best shot at getting PA overturned as opposed to disputed.

Btw I wasn't being an ass in the other thread. People are expecting PA to be declared for Trump today which is very, very unlikely. A decision like that is not going to be made without oral arguments, IMO, if for no other reason than formality.

25
deleted 25 points ago +25 / -0
15
TrumpTrollMaster 15 points ago +15 / -0

Trump's not trying to overturn the results (proving fraud)

Trump is proving that Biden's overturning the results (proving unconstitutionality)

The mean's Trump's on the defensive and has to explain everything.

The latter means a military operation.

9
mrbear10mm 9 points ago +9 / -0

First of all, this isn't Trumps case. Secondly, while this isn't the relief being requested we already have precident here in the Commonwealth for just this kind of action.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1994-02-20-1994051024-story.html

Changing our absentee ballot laws here in PA requires a constitutional amendment that must go through a very specific process including putting it to a vote by the people on the ballot like we did in 2016 in respect to sitting judges age limits.

The funny thing about that was it went to court a few times over the wording of the question on the ballot. They wanted to make it sound as is the age limit was being lowered when in reality it was being raised by several years likely because the 2015 state supreme court justices that were appointed were already approaching the age limit.

This case is about absentee ballots. Of 2.5 million cast, only 500k were for Trump. Those ballots can be thrown out which would overturn the "official" fraudulent results. Conversely, it may also result in a disputed election which still works in our favor.

8
InarosPrime 8 points ago +8 / -0

I never expected PA to be called for Trump. I find it more likely SCOTUS will declare states' electoral votes void. If Biden drops below 270, Trump will probably win.

6
conservativerants 6 points ago +9 / -3

No, if you void PA's electors then the number needed to win drops to 260. The better remedy is for SCOTUS to tell PA "your election was spoiled, the remedy is for the state house to seat electors themselves, irrespective of the recent election"

2
taco917 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not true. The 270 number is absolute, it doesn’t change if you exclude some states. If neither side reaches 270, the whole election goes to Congress for a per-state vote.

(That said, eliminating PA doesn’t do enough, would still need to eliminate or flip GA and at least one more.)

1
conservativerants 1 point ago +1 / -0

Actually I'm pretty sure that's not the case. The constitution says the electors convene and vote and whomever has the majority wins.

If a state doesn't send electors then the number needed for the majority is lowered because there are fewer electors convening. This was the case in the Civil War, when states like Mississippi, Alabama, etc, did not send electors to vote for Lincoln or McClellan and thus the number needed to win was lower.

23
mrbear10mm 23 points ago +23 / -0

Haha, after seeing PAs response we are sitting even more pretty than we were on the merits themselves. Pandoras box my ass... https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1994-02-20-1994051024-story.html

15
40-More-Years 15 points ago +15 / -0

Yeah they really fucked themselves. After reading it I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if Alito’s temporary relief is very substantial, they pretty much just said “yeah we cheated, but what’re you gonna do about it?” to one of the only people in the country who can actually do something about it.

They just went full retard, never go full retard.

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
3
mrbear10mm 3 points ago +3 / -0

Muh racist 18th and 19th century laws ain't need no constitutional amendments.

I'm actually amazed that they actually filed this, it's literally a slap to everyone's face and a blantant attempt to try and paint Alito as some sort of racist if he doesn't go along. This is the kind of stuff you see judges go scorched earth on, but we'll see.

5
they-see-me-trollin 5 points ago +6 / -1

alito will side with us because the law is on our side and he's a constitutionalist, and not a deep state shill.

the real question is how the rest of the court will rule. kagan, sotomayor, and breyer will probably rule against us because they're all deep state. they have shit on roberts, so he'll rule against us too. alito, thomas, acb, and kavanaugh will rule for us because they're not deep state shills, and they actually care about the constitution. gorsuch leans towards us, but he's realistically a swing vote.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
143
deleted 143 points ago +143 / -0
82
deleted 82 points ago +92 / -10
34
BoatingAccident 34 points ago +34 / -0

I know. It's national brownie day. I'm surprised Google doesn't have some kind of celebratory imaging.

18
justanotherSCpatriot 18 points ago +18 / -0

Brownies so racist - couldn't make them another color?

8
JSullz59 8 points ago +8 / -0

Yeah but Blondies are the hair color of European ancestry so no matter what they are racists.

5
stillbringingitback 5 points ago +6 / -1

Darkies?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
JudicialDredd 2 points ago +2 / -0

Whities. Reeeeeeeee

1
DroolingElmo 1 point ago +1 / -0

How about whities and blackies?

2
Yambag 2 points ago +2 / -0 (edited)

Do you use your mother's name as a swear word? Yeah, me too. High five!

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-27
deleted -27 points ago +36 / -63
21
AlohaSnackbar 21 points ago +22 / -1

I don't necessarily agree, but I can agree to alter my language from "jesus fucking christ" to "Mohammad fucks kids".

We'll see if it catches on.

9
RussianAgent13 9 points ago +9 / -0

Dear Elizabeth's ghost that's a great idea.

9
MyAuntFanny 9 points ago +9 / -0

You bet your sweet Tricia Lee I would.

And she'd smile down from Heaven and laugh at me. Great sense of humor she had.

5
deleted 5 points ago +8 / -3
0
deleted 0 points ago +3 / -3
1
deleted 1 point ago +4 / -3
0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
-3
JudgeRighteously -3 points ago +1 / -4

Jesus is the Word, he wrote all of it and confirmed all of it (see John 1). He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of the Father. He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. You take your own life in your hands when you speak flippantly of him. Fortunately for you, he is prepared to forgive blasphemy against the Son, but beware that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.(Mark 3, Matthew 12)

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
1
Yambag 1 point ago +1 / -0

Good for you bro; I for one am 100% tolerant of your beliefs. As long as you support Trump.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
22
40-More-Years 22 points ago +22 / -0

We did, the response from the defendants.

17
jimboscott 17 points ago +19 / -2

We were not going to get anything at 9. The SCOTUS gave 9 as a deadline for PA's response. They moved it from tomorrow to today.

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
17
deleted 17 points ago +17 / -0
12
fapoo 12 points ago +12 / -0

they responded, that's what you're seeing at the top of this thread, what we're waiting on now is Alito's response to it.

8
Loc12 8 points ago +8 / -0

This is their response

7
jimboscott 7 points ago +7 / -0

They responded with their petition to dismiss.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
5
PoppinKREAM 5 points ago +5 / -0

They've responded with what's effectively lawyer gobbilty-gook claiming "but u can't interfere!!!"

Their argument tries to use separation of powers as a theme. Given the fact that the entire PA election was conducted in spite of the state's own constitutional processes, it's a hail Mary of an argument.

1
OGTexasPede 1 point ago +1 / -0

When is the Supreme Court expected to announce anything?

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
3
anon2468 3 points ago +3 / -0

Pa was to file by 9 est and Alito was to have a response by noon est [east coast time]

102
dontbanus 102 points ago +103 / -1

If the Supreme Court doesn’t pull through, I think we all know what has to happen next.

And I hope you all are as serious as you say you are.

This is the hill.

42
LRRP 42 points ago +42 / -0

Take at least 5 with you.

31
dontbanus 31 points ago +31 / -0

When you really sit down and think through this possibility, it should scare every single one of us. We joke about helicopters and it’s always fun and games. But this could get real, fast. I know some people who have already had some very serious conversations with their loved ones. This is not for us, this is for future generations.

14
ObjectiveReality 14 points ago +14 / -0

I think most people are beyond the thought scaring them because of the sheer necessity of it.

And no one on this side will be responsible for it, given how far everyone bent over backwards to solve this justly through every other means available. I mean, you couldn't draw the line any further back.

11
deleted 11 points ago +11 / -0
9
LRRP 9 points ago +9 / -0

Leader, check. List, check. Rules, don’t get caught.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
9
deleted 9 points ago +10 / -1
9
LRRP 9 points ago +9 / -0

It must be now. We have the means.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
11
SvixGale 11 points ago +11 / -0

Fuck that; make THEM die for THEIR bullshit communist beliefs. We ain't going nowhere.

You know what sniping is?

Get right the fuck out of your mind ANY semblance of traditional combat; fighting antifags in the streets, etc.

Start thinking along the lines of DC Snipers, Christopher Dorner, etc.

Make a shot, pack your shit, GTFO. Don't say a word to fucking anybody - ANYBODY.

9
LRRP 9 points ago +9 / -0

I posted a thread about Dorner a few days back. One man with a rifle shut down California law enforcement.

1
SvixGale 1 point ago +1 / -0

And one man and one boy with a rifle and a clapped-out, old-ass Chevy Caprice with a hole cut in the trunk shut down the entire DC area for weeks. :-) Imagine what even a million angry Patriots can do. This fight is ours to win.

2
LRRP 2 points ago +2 / -0

And Dorner, 1 man with a rifle, shut down California for 2 weeks.

1
SvixGale 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah, I guess that guy wins. :-) I mean; not sure if I'd agree he shut down ALL of CA; the LA area, for sure. Was San Diego impacted? I find it hard to believe the bay area & nor cal were at all shut down because of Dorner.....

3
babyface 3 points ago +3 / -0

Matt Bracken: What I saw at the Coup

Short read. Worth your time if you haven't read it.

1
SvixGale 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh, I have read it. Have it saved too. :-) Bracken is one of my favorite authors / bloggers / etc.

Have you read EFAD?

2
babyface 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes. Also awesome, but a longer read. Been awhile though. Probably time for a reread.

1
SvixGale 1 point ago +1 / -0

Agree. Also time for a re-read on my end. You read Unintended Consequences? DEF. time for a re-read there.....

10
deleted 10 points ago +11 / -1
2
Stoya9186 2 points ago +2 / -0

Or one very high value target!

1
magaspif 1 point ago +1 / -0

Officers first

10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
4
SvixGale 4 points ago +4 / -0

Amen brother. We shall soon find out how serious all these people are....

4
ManOnTheEdge 4 points ago +4 / -0

We will never be stronger than we are now. Our odds of success never better. If the republic cannot be saved by the courts, then we must act to save our nation and provide a future for our children.

-2
aangler100 -2 points ago +1 / -3

You need to be more explicit when you shill.

69
Trampus 69 points ago +70 / -1

TLDR What does it say?

162
deleted 162 points ago +163 / -1 (edited)
76
deleted 76 points ago +76 / -0
23
deleted 23 points ago +23 / -0
7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
6
ObjectiveReality 6 points ago +6 / -0

Someone remind me, who operates all those farms with bags of ammonium nitrate laying around?

Is it leftists?

12
deleted 12 points ago +12 / -0
6
Stevo182 6 points ago +6 / -0

Also the guns. Don't forget about the guns.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
36
deleted 36 points ago +36 / -0
7
kornesque 7 points ago +7 / -0

1/1024th

My injun...

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
6
InarosPrime 6 points ago +6 / -0

Lincoln's reelection was almost stolen by vote by mail fraud. Kennedy v Nixon is also suspected to be stolen by Democrats.

4
conservativerants 4 points ago +4 / -0

nah nah nah, it's unprecedented for a President and his supporters to FIGHT the rigging.

They've been rigging for years, but cowards like Mitt always rolled over and conceded.

3
smis 3 points ago +3 / -0

of course it's unprecedented, otherwise you'd be using jurisprudence, what kind of stupid non argument is that lmao

2
SvixGale 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is why we need to mag dump just ONE antifag mob, make them too scared to assemble for a few months. Then continue on with real High Value Targets.

9
Weallseethetruth 9 points ago +9 / -0

Fucking exactly!!! That's how I saw it is basically saying "if you do this everyone is going to be really upset!!!" ... It doesn't justify anything they did it's basically threatening the judge that he'll go down as the one who did this and people will be really mad at him!!!! 🙄

3
reddeadpill 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yet another example of the left refusing to take responsibility. If everyone took responsibility for their actions the left wouldn’t exist, no abortion, no demand for “free” college, etc. The left only exists because too many people are unable to take responsibility and instead demand big daddy government fix their lives for them.

4
Weallseethetruth 4 points ago +4 / -0

Right!!!

8
Sweitzenhammer 8 points ago +8 / -0

Spot on. Feelings over facts.

4
TraitorJoes 4 points ago +4 / -0

This about sums it up!

44
phillipcurl 44 points ago +45 / -1

Basically defendants argument is that there is no precedent for invalidating a governors certification and at the same time they are saying that in doing so would undermine our trust in the constitution. Too bad the democrats did that already. I believe it will be rules in our favor

45
Cincinattus1776 45 points ago +45 / -0

"By undoing our own undermining of the Constitution, you will undermine our trust in the Constitution!"

Get the fuck out of here, Pennsylvania.

10
LiskaEman 10 points ago +10 / -0

I think similar- especially because the original (lower) court that agreed with Kelly in that it was unconstitutional set a great framework for Alito to say "hey, yeah, it's not just me making the decision."

It was the PA Supreme Court that overturned that lower courts decision that comes across as shady especially since it's state run/conflict of interest. We have a good case, I think/hope, so now we see.

5
Dallasguy 5 points ago +5 / -0

My trust in the constitution is the only thing keeping those people alive at this point. They are busy hacking away at their own lifeboat.

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
30
Kekistancoffee 30 points ago +31 / -1

This is from Pennsylvania, so it's going to say President Trump is wrong and the Orange Man is Bad.

In short: Nah, it's no big deal. Supreme Court is way too supreme to be worried about this kind of stuff.

My favorite, from the table of contents:

"The Due Process Clause Prohibits The Retroactive Invalidation of Ballots Cast in Reasonable Reliance on Election Rules" IE: you can't throw out ballots that are corrupt and evil, because we figured they would be counted when we printed them out corruptly.

13
LRRP 13 points ago +13 / -0

“Reasonable reliance on Election Rules...” you just have to try and sorta follow the rules but not rly

5
wholesomekangz100 5 points ago +6 / -1

Reasonable Reliance on Election Rules

Should've told your scum voter base to not vote by mail then.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
14
Gilliais 14 points ago +16 / -2

To paraphrase:

Nya-nya-NA-nya-NA

7
nmipede 7 points ago +8 / -1

There may have been some neener-neeners in there as well, but that's substantially accurate. Here we go, boys!

2
Matticus 2 points ago +3 / -1

I respectfully disagree with both of the above. The sum and substance of this filing was a resounding "nuh-uh", and that is evident ipso facto

0
nmipede 0 points ago +1 / -1 (edited)

I submit that those instances of "nuh-uh" are deprecated replevin and therefore effecively desuetude.

Carry on smartly.

2
ShartMaster 2 points ago +2 / -0

I object!

If counsel will refer to the case of ~Nanny Nanny Boo Boo v Stick Your Head In Doo Doo~, "nuh-uh" is a valid defense!

2
TinyKraken 2 points ago +2 / -0

Alternative paraphrase:

"Dame dane, dame yo..."

8
deleted 8 points ago +9 / -1
5
loveshock 5 points ago +5 / -0

Are you confused? This is PA's defense. They are begging SCOTUS not to hear the case, they have no standing on deciding if it proceeds.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
56
the_pragmaticist 56 points ago +56 / -0

First paragraph in short : the courts better not point out that the election was compromised or people will lose faith in our compromised elections.

16
VenusDe 16 points ago +16 / -0

That's they're argument and sadly a lot of lower courts are accepting it "We can't nullify an election -- people will lose faith in them." (better to keep them ignorant sheep is implied but left unsaid).

5
deleted 5 points ago +6 / -1
52
NOTWOKE 52 points ago +52 / -0

Hold on to your hats pede. It’s going to get wild from here!

21
20KAG20 21 points ago +21 / -0

Oil things that may need to be oiled. Keep magazines close. Things may get wild

49
Cross_The_Rubicon 49 points ago +49 / -0

I read it and I’m lost....

Send halp and tendies, someone dumb this down

73
djtverystablegenius 73 points ago +73 / -0

The PA swamp argues that:

  • their fraud is too big to be overturned (no precedent)
  • the public would be against the court if they ruled for Trump
  • in their judgement this case is "an affront to constitutional democracy"
30
lurkwellmyfriends 30 points ago +30 / -0

Lollllll what is "constitutional democracy", as they define it? We live in a republic. These are not legal arguments. It seems clear how the court should rule as the actions are de facto unconstitutional - but we're in clown world now so who knows.

7
djtverystablegenius 7 points ago +7 / -0

Not one mention of the two Court Orders Alito issued... that the PA Government ignored.

Take the "L" you PA commies.

3
pyongyangpothead 3 points ago +3 / -0

what is "constitutional democracy", as they define it?

Akhtuhally it is place where democrats write constitutions and it has no room for racist bigots like you!

13
NotDangerousGame 13 points ago +13 / -0

Well, its a damn good thing we can arm ourselves to defend against the mob and that we dont live in a constitutional democracy.

2
velocistar 2 points ago +2 / -0

Most citizens in the country want the court to rule for Trump lmaoo....

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
29
TinyKraken 29 points ago +29 / -0

Actually, someone needs to smart it up, because this is already pretty dumb.

"The supreme court hasn't done this before so it shouldn't"

SCOTUS is all about setting new precedents, fuck outta here lawtard.

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
4
reddeadpill 4 points ago +4 / -0

I’m sure this kinda fraud has happened before. Only difference this time is they got caught.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
5
lurkwellmyfriends 5 points ago +5 / -0

They've never decertified fraud? Hahahahaha

2
Peart44 2 points ago +2 / -0

LOL

10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
13
djtverystablegenius 13 points ago +13 / -0

Basically PA argues that SCOTUS will piss people off and the other case is bull sh*t. PA further argues that nobody has checked their fraud in the past so it would be BS to check it now.

4
Boilingsnowflakes4u 4 points ago +4 / -0

Lol, as if SC ever cared about anybody’s feelings! About to see what a constitutional Supreme Court looks like now that RBG is gone

2
reddeadpill 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ah yes, we should totally care because antifa will get angry... and burn down their own shithole cities again. Good. Let them.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
2
Cross_The_Rubicon 2 points ago +2 / -0

BWHAHAHAHAHA

48
Banequo 48 points ago +48 / -0

So, their defense is “It’ll uproot Amerika!”

You mother fuckers already poisoned America!

It’s time we Flip the Table over and look at all the bugs in under the light of God scatter around looking for solace!

REVOLUTION 2020!

17
LibDestroyer50000 17 points ago +17 / -0

No, there will not be a revolution. What will happen, is that **TWO HOLLOW FANGS WILL PRECISELY AND SURGICALY REMOVE THE SWAMP TUMOR FROM THE GREAT BODY, MIND, AND SOUL OF OUR BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY. 🇺🇸 GOD 🇺🇸 BLESS 🇺🇸 AMERICA 🇺🇸 **

5
Nancypelosisoldliver 5 points ago +5 / -0

We're ending their shit excuse for a revolution haha. Antifa has struggled so hard just to get where they are and we beat them so bad they had to cheat to win.

Its a shame so many people are in their death cult worldwide

2
SvixGale 2 points ago +2 / -0

What do you mean? How does that work?

37
deleted 37 points ago +37 / -0
33
deleted 33 points ago +33 / -0
18
Kekistancoffee 18 points ago +18 / -0

Yes, it's infuriating. However, I've been in court and I can say that all responses from your enemy are written this way. My lawyer flat out told me that's why I was paying him, to write responses in the most aggressive way possible... and the enemy is also paying lawyers for the same reason.

Just remember, that our guys include Jay Sekulow... who is a freaking genius.

The very fact that the enemy team hired 14 lawyers and what appears to be 3 extra law firms tells you they are scared.

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
4
SvixGale 4 points ago +4 / -0

Friendly reminder for everyone that Jay Sekulow has not only argued at least I think 12 or more cases before the supreme court, but he has a PERFECT TRACK RECORD OF VICTORY AT SCOTUS!!!!!

13
AnatomicFlack 13 points ago +13 / -0

It's almost worse than that because they simultaneously state the grievances themselves were both too late (laches) and not early enough (waiting over a year to respond).

I'm still of the belief that without injury there can be no demonstration of the issue. And frankly they would have dismissed it out of hand as not founded on facts

I don't know crap about comprehending BS legal summaries from partisans a-holes... so what do I know. But that summary is dripping with snark and dismissive opinion.

8
Rustbeltkulak 8 points ago +8 / -0

No need to dwell in anger over this. Understand that their very best arguments here are laid bare, and are easily found wanting. They have a poor case and they are now in front of SCOTUS, not some bought and paid for kangaroo court in Harrisburg.

25
Jestre 25 points ago +25 / -0

So they went with the old "baseless claims" defense, eh? In other words, PA doesn't have a leg to stand on here and the Trump wrecking ball is coming through

7
YaBoiJacob 7 points ago +7 / -0

Pretty much yeah

7
Shalomtoyou 7 points ago +7 / -0

But this time the Trump Train will be backed by the Cruz Missile.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
Jestre 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah, it's the laziest argument of all time. Which means they have absolutely no argument against any claim with a base, which all of our claims have. They're completely fucked, we know it, they know it, Scotus knows it. Gonna be funny when their base finds out

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
24
deleted 24 points ago +27 / -3 (edited)
24
deleted 24 points ago +24 / -0
9
Cincinattus1776 9 points ago +9 / -0

The underlying process that allowed the voter to cast that vote was unconstitutional.

Isn't this part of the entire argument that Parnell is making?

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
0
deleted 0 points ago +3 / -3
0
wholesomekangz100 0 points ago +1 / -1

interested what the other side says.

Can people drop this devil's advocacy bullshit? Stop caring about the other side. Politics is cold-blooded. It isn't about being weak and talking nicely to absolute scumbags.
Cuckservatives are cancer.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
3
deleted 3 points ago +4 / -1
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
12
LightSpeedTrumpTrain 12 points ago +12 / -0

yeah that’s my worry too, because reasonably the answer is no they shouldn’t think like that.

But at the same time this shouldn’t have been a thing in the first place. Just throw out PA entirely if ya can’t throw out those mail in ballots

6
wholesomekangz100 6 points ago +8 / -2

why his ballot should be discarded

Because most mail-in ballots went for Biden. Fuck Biden and fuck leftists. These faggots support the people who pull shit like this.
If the Democrats cared about their voters and their votes, they should've followed the proper rules. They can blame the Democrats for causing them problems but probably won't because they're braindead NPCs.

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
5
NOT_ADMIN 5 points ago +5 / -0

I would say, If the mail in voting system was not a legal avenue to cast a ballot, that the guilt falls upon those that created and represented that method as being valid. The fraud was not committed by the voter, it was committed by those who convinced the voters to use an invalid method. Therefore we are not disenfranchising those voters as they were already disenfranchised by using such invalid methods. To allow these invalid methods to be counted would now disenfranchise all other voters.

4
BidenwontwinPA 4 points ago +4 / -0

Thats an interesting point. Im not a legal pede, but couldnt the petitioners have argued mailin voters should have known?

Also, wouldnt this only matter if the remedy is to throw out the mailin ballots? What if they just say that PA cant send electora?

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
20
amilbarge00 20 points ago +20 / -0

I didn't read the whole thing, but the first paragraph is infuriating.

Petitioners ask this Court to undertake one of the most dramatic, disruptive invocations of judicial power in the history of the Republic. No court has ever issued an order nullifying a governor’s certification of presidential election results. And for good reason: “Once the door is opened to judicial invalidation of presidential election results, it will be awfully hard to close that door again. . . . The loss of public trust in our constitutional order resulting from the exercise of this kind of judicial power would be incalculable.”

How dare these people talk about the loss of public trust?

1
Insanejub 1 point ago +1 / -0

Everything is projection with establishment democrats. EVERYTHING.

17
MisterKag 17 points ago +17 / -0

“If you don’t let us destroy the election process, it will be bad.”

Alito is going to tear them wide open.

3
velocistar 3 points ago +3 / -0

He better.

17
blukid 17 points ago +17 / -0

We will hear a decision from the SCOTUS or Alito himself before 12:00 PM. If they rule in our favor, then PA will be temporary restricted from seating electors for the time being. While this is only PA, this sends out a clear message to the other states that the SCOTUS is willing to get involved.

The plan for PA as of now is we receive temporary relief from Alito/SCOTUS and block them from seating electors, then the SCOTUS rules (probably sometime next week?) on the actual case and invalidate the mail in ballots.

4
VenusDe 4 points ago +4 / -0

I thought they were going to grant or deny review, then set oral arguments BEFORE they issue a ruling.

That's why Cruz volunteered to "argue the case if SCOTUS grants cert" (certioria -- which means review).

Obviously granting "cert" is a good sign for us -- they can just deny review if they want to leave the PA Supreme Court judgment in place. But it isn't a guarantee.

15
zaia123 15 points ago +15 / -0

WE will know by noon TODAY

14
Folignofavorite71 14 points ago +14 / -0

Sekulow on his show said that Alito if not also Scotus should have a decision before 12 today

3
VenusDe 3 points ago +3 / -0

decision on whether they are going to grant cert (review), right? Not a decision on the merits.

1
Folignofavorite71 1 point ago +1 / -0

Pretty sure their ruling is official. They will decide whether to seat electors. I may be wrong.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
13
VenusDe 13 points ago +13 / -0

This game the Democrat play of "delaying review of their fraud until they can rush the certification of the vote" has GOT TO END, at least with federal elections.

That's the whole reason for the b.s. "safe harbor" date and the EC voting date being 12/14 (by statute) rather than closer to January 20 -- they used to have the EC vote on January 18 -- just 2 days before the inauguration. The ONLY reason it was moved to mid-December was to prevent meaningful review of fraud.

I pray this is the case where the SCOTUS comes right out and says the statute setting the safe harbor date on 12/8 and EC vote date on 12/14 is unconstitutional because it seeks to circumvent review of of fraud in the presidential election to deprive US citizens of a free and fair election.

And I hope they also say a rushed certification to avoid review of fraud is null.

13
JohnWickLocke 13 points ago +13 / -0

I'm not a doomer because I believe Justice will prevail, it has kept this country afloat for 200+ years, even when at times, has been questionable. This seems too big for that. This is a precipice that the SCOTUS is standing at to literally save the world through the laws of the only truly free men and women left in the world.

PA makes some strong arguments. If I were to put my strategy hat on, this shows the other states and Trump's legal team the hand that the left is going to play with SCOTUS and gives them a ton of ammunition for future or additional cases. It allows Texas, Trump, Georgia suits brought to SCOTUS the opportunity to position their arguments accordingly while also clearing the haze from a legal route. At the surface, this appears to be a game of chess that the "gods" among us are playing against each other. We are all but pawns on the board.

I believe Alito moved this case to 9am today for a specific reason. If he rules against PA before noon and puts a stay in place on the seating of electors, or delays the case, which puts the state in dispute, it gives one last opportunity for each state to get their shit together and signals to the legislators in each state that they have one last chance to do the right thing or they risk the gavel of justice coming down on them in a way that there will be no way to overcome. It also means that if the Justice is willing to put one state on hold, it sets a precedent that the other electors in other states will need to be put on hold pending a full review and decision by SCOTUS. Remember folks, there are bigger goals here... one is restoring confidence in the elections, the other is preventing social upheaval.

To restore confidence in the election when 60% of the voting public believe there was fraud and sees evidence of it, SCOTUS will need each state to take action to prove to voters in THAT STATE that their election process is valid and their votes counted properly and were not diluted. For each state, that would require a full forensic audit and signature verifications. If there was fraud, fixing that and getting it right shows the people that they can trust the process, even if it's complicated. Second, is ensuring that ALL of the states comply with this process so that OTHER states don't feel disenfranchised and diluted.

SCOTUS can get here in only two ways that won't create massive upheaval and social unrest. They either rule that the election was done "on the day of" as stated in Foster v Love, which the SCOTUS unanimously agreed that by midnight, the electors have been decided, otherwise the state loses its electors and their votes are null. This means as Alito alluded to previously, that mail-in ballots received after midnight (including backdated ones) are null and void when he told them to set them aside in PA and they ignored him. If that is the ruling, every state where there is a contested result currently, Trump wins by a lot. The other option they have is to deem PAs changes to the election process for mail-in ballots unconstitutional due to bypassing the legislature, which doesn't win all of the states for Trump, but it overturns PA and GA on their face, while also throwing out mail-in ballots. They have to prove that voters rights to equality under the law were violated, but that would turn two states easily. With AZ decertifying the results of the election and other states still in litigation, there would be enough electoral votes withheld due to pending litigation to seat those electors, and the remaining votes would be less than 270 for either Trump or Biden. This sets the stage for things to get messy fast.

Given that the SCOTUS doesn't want to decide on who the President should be, that it is not in their best interest of place to do that, they will want to push the onus back to the voters and the states or Congress to let the election process play out as it should. However, also given the fuckery that has taken place, PA ignoring Alito's warning to them, what Biden did to Thomas, what Kamala did to Kavanaugh, the repeated question in the Barrett hearings of whether she would recuse herself from any election challenges, is a strong signal to the SCOTUS that there was a line of reasoning for those questions that speaks to prior knowledge of this issue coming to the Court for a decision, which points to a some knowledge of fraudulent activity ensuing. I think SCOTUS knows that this was cheating, fraud, and they will protect the disenfranchised voter before political parties while also reminding Congress that they are the third branch of government to serve as a check and balance to the other two, and in this case, a gut check body blow to the Left. with their blatant cheating.

The response to the SCOTUS from PA is actually a well drafted response, too good to not have been crafted well in advance of the election and this challenge to the Court. It appears to have been planned that this was going to happen exactly like it is. The way it's written, removes accountability of any one person or group and instead blames the legal bullshit that has occurred over decades. If SCOTUS doesn't rule on this, it's going to be a very interesting interpretation of the law and will set the precedent for cheating for decades. The only option at that point will be for Trump to lean on the Executive Order and prove foreign interference.

2
Dirtbuggy 2 points ago +2 / -0

Trump has the insurrection act and I believe he will use it if SCOTUS fails him. Why? Because he's planned this for years and Ginsberg was assumed to be in place, her death was a 'happy accident' for Trump.

They would have assumed that SCOTUS was going to rule against them, he has contingency and has the balls to use it, if SCOTUS ignores the constitution.

1
misterLahey 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thanks. Worth the read.

12
WindyCityBluez 12 points ago +12 / -0

This is fucking nuts.. section 26 says that even if their election rules are unlawful, you cant uncertainty an election. This brief in a nutshell is saying cheating is fine, as long as they like who wins. WTF!!!

12
Bucky1951 12 points ago +12 / -0

This may be the dumbest thing I have ever read written by a lawyer—and I have read a lot, even my own stuff.

12
LiskaEman 12 points ago +12 / -0

We'll know in the next 2 hours what's up with this. Phew! Praying Alito gives us a win/stay on injunction here.

11
djtverystablegenius 11 points ago +11 / -0

The PA swamp comes back with this weak sauce?

11
Billybobcuccio 11 points ago +11 / -0

Alito is gonna rule in our favor when he rules.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
10
geckogreen 10 points ago +10 / -0

Anyone remember when the senate was questioning Amy Conney Barret and didn't like how she would be part of cases determining the election. Did these senators know there would be fraud? How did they know the election was going to the supreme court?

2
SvixGale 2 points ago +2 / -0

TBH, I'm still wondering why her confirmation was so totally stale & bland. It wasn't even 1/10th of 1% as crazy & disgusting as what they did to Kavanaugh. I wonder why.... Anyone?

2
tremendous_trump2020 2 points ago +2 / -0

Because they already played the fake rape card against Kavanaugh, it would have been too obvious to try that again so soon and a lot harder to pass off considering she’s a woman. It all happened so quickly and unexpectedly they didn’t have enough time to pull off concocting a whole new scandal. And they knew Biden would be elected with the planned fraud so they could pack the court with their own thugs.

1
SvixGale 1 point ago +1 / -0

Good point.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
9
debacle 9 points ago +9 / -0

Their filing tries to use a PA Supreme Court case as SCOTUS precedent.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
misterLahey 1 point ago +1 / -0

This. How was that allowed to stand?

8
DaisyWicksGhost 8 points ago +8 / -0

If SCOTUS isn't interested in hearing cases for this, they cease to be relevant going forward.

They will have proven themselves unwilling to preserve and protect the Constitution and our freedoms.

It's exactly why they refuse to hear anything related to the 2nd Amendment, for it would undo gun control everywhere.

Shall not be infringed, is a clear as clear can get. SCOTUS knows it full well.

8
ModsTakeYuan 8 points ago +9 / -1

Reminder: THE PA Supreme court has 3 actually treasonous traitors on it bought and paid for with Soros money. They are legit enemies of the people. They just revealed themselves as traitors to true patriots.

4
wholesomekangz100 4 points ago +5 / -1

Can I get the names quickly? I would love to do an "early-life" check on them

8
deleted 8 points ago +9 / -1
7
Sherlocks_Pocket 7 points ago +7 / -0

Lawfags plz interpret?

13
YaBoiJacob 13 points ago +13 / -0

Basically this is the state of Pennsylvania saying that they have no defense against trumps argument except orange man bad

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
7
tom_of_rj_fame 7 points ago +7 / -0

Ouch, takes a hard swing, sub silento, at Roberts, for not taking the matter up in the first appeal and proactively cutting off this controversy. Penn proceeded anyways, with thePA - SC being in-your-face SCOTUS about it. The Laches argument just flies in the face of reality: (1) the case is not ripe before the harm but (2) the case is barred by laches after the harm. That is not a proper application of laches (a judge made equitable doctrine) as the old saying goes (J. Story) equity is rule of law, not a rule of measure of the chancellor's foot. "Breathtaking", "earth shattering" etc over-the-top adjectives - the fall back of weak legal argument - like legal foot stomping - is not going to carry the day IMHO. We'll see the measure of the man - Alito - soon enough.

3
Hemirocket 3 points ago +3 / -0

Agreed, they also completely push aside the proper procedure for amending PA constitution. You can't just pass an act on a single majority vote, there's a specific process for amendments and they circumvented it making ACT 77 unconstitutional according to their own state's constitution.

1
RPchill1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well put! I'm thinking Justice Alito is not as stupid as these clowns seem to hope he is. What a slap in the face with all this smoke and mirrors.

7
shragae 7 points ago +7 / -0

It's ok that we ignored the law and thumbed our noses at SCOTUS 'cause they waited too long...

And sadly this bullshit WORKED in state courts!

7
redinmn 7 points ago +7 / -0

The response is beyond a joke. It is nothing but "we rely on the foundation of crap we already presented and therefor have a foundation to claim that the foundation is valid due to the foundation that we have already said" circle logic.

7
djtverystablegenius 7 points ago +7 / -0

TL/DR

Everything those lawyers said was complete Bull Sh*t

  • PA Government
3
Peart44 3 points ago +3 / -0

Spot on. LOL

7
Hemirocket 7 points ago +7 / -0

So their whole argument rests on these 4 points:

  1. That they didn't start this particular seeking of relief in state courts
  2. That they waited too long to seek relief
  3. That they lacked standing
  4. That ACT 77 didn't violate PA constitution

There's been a myriad of challenges in the state courts. I'm not sure whether this particular line of motion was presented to the state court but I'm not sure a first view requirement suffices here.

If they would have sought relief earlier, there would be no injury to seek remedy to. Laches is a poor excuse not to challenge obvious fraud.

If the petitioners, as elected officials and voters, do not have standing then how the hell would anyone challenge election fraud in court?

They fail to mention that PA constitution requires a multiple step approach to amendments: Majority vote in legislature, respite, a second vote in legislature, respite, announcement for a certain time in multiple major newspapers, respite, and finally a vote from the people for the proposal. They claim that the PA constitution is so old that many of these views are dated, however this is how the PA constitution currently stands, if the legislature doesn't want to adhere to its own states constitution then it should legally and validly pass amendments to correct its failings.

Just my 2 cents

7
velocistar 7 points ago +7 / -0

Alito better not blow it.

After all, didn't he want post-Nov 3 ballots separated and they refused to do it? That should not make him happy.

6
Bedminster 6 points ago +6 / -0

I do think this will be a high water mark for the SCOTUS as far as how much they want to get involved the abject theft of our Republic. I feel any case we get before them we will absolutely win, it's just getting the case to be heard.

6
booblitchutz 6 points ago +6 / -0

Summarize their response in one sentence from this PDF:

Petitioners had their day in court. They filed suit too late.

There. I saved you an hour at least.

6
UkDeplorable 6 points ago +6 / -0

That response has no merit whatsoever, either factually or legally

“Yes we ignored the legislature and altered their law without permission but petitioners should have filed suit then and there and we would have responded by claiming they haven’t incurred any damage as a result of our unconstitutional action and they need to wait until after the election”

6
koshersquid 6 points ago +6 / -0 (edited)

"To that end, the General Assembly included a provision that required all constitutional challenges to Act 77 to be brought within 180 days of its effective date. See Act 77 § 13(3). "

Literally what? I'm a lawyer but I don't need to be to know that a legislature can't simply say "nuh-uh" to any judicial review of the constitutionality of the statute. If it's unconstitutional, it remains unconstitutional 181 days after its enactment. And I'm only 1/3 the way through reading the petition.

SPEZ: Another few pages to another gem, "Three of the eight Petitioners here—Congressman Mike Kelly, Sean Parnell, and Wanda Logan—ran for and won their respective June primaries, and Congressman Kelly won reelection to the U.S. House of Representatives in the November 3 General Election. All three presumably garnered votes cast on the same mail-in ballots that, they now insist, they have only recently concluded are unconstitutional." If they won those elections, they didn't have standing to contest the constitutionality of the process because they suffered no injury. This is yet another reason why the argument "you should have litigated this sooner" is absolutely braindead; until there's an injury, there's no standing to sue.

2
Freadrik 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes, I read that and laughed out loud. Basically, “you weren’t complaining about our unconstitutional law when it benefited you!”

6
spez__ 6 points ago +6 / -0

So essentially, "Yeah, there might have been fraud but you can't overturn it because that will set precedent!"

Fuck you, PASC.

6
comoragh 6 points ago +6 / -0

"Cmon man, just because it violated federal law if you overturn the election now it'll make people, like, feel untrusting and stuff". These people SUCK.

6
eagles_have_landed 6 points ago +6 / -0

Any news on this?

4
BeefChucker 4 points ago +4 / -0 (edited)

Correction: SCOTUS not granting emergency injunction. May still hear case. Or Perhaps addressing more significant ones. or simply fine with their own destruction via packed court (wouldn’t know)

4
nasty_pelosi 4 points ago +4 / -0

Rejected without explanation.

https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/1000615/1

Edit: this was a rejection of the request for emergency relief, not the actual case itself.

2
aside 2 points ago +2 / -0

Correct. They will take the Texas suit instead

6
IloveDJT2020 6 points ago +6 / -0

Can someone ELI5 about this situation?

7
Cakes4077 7 points ago +7 / -0

The main argument in the lawsuit brought by Rep. Mike Kelly, Sean Parnell, et al against PA is that the way mail-in voting was passed in PA goes against the PA constitution. The PA constitution details what kind of voting and how to go about doing so, but mail-in voting is not included in the PA constitution, so to make mail-in voting a legal method to vote a change to the PA constitution would be required and the method to do change the PA constitution wasn't followed. Kelly et al argue that that means mail-in ballots were unconstitutional to begin with. PA counter response is that if all mail-in ballots were discarded that would mean a lot of Pennsylvanian's vote wouldn't be counted and they'd be disenfranchised, so SCOTUS shouldn't decertify the PA election.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
edwardsnow 2 points ago +2 / -0

"The law be damned we can do whatever we want" is the precedence they want to set if SCOTUS rules in their favor.

The new(and potential swing judges) on SCOTUS(ACB,KAV,GOR) will put their name in history one way or another or they will punt.

0
Dallasguy 0 points ago +2 / -2

Click the link, scroll down and read. YAN5

6
BillDCat 6 points ago +6 / -0

Regardless of ruling on this case, SCOTUS has to take up the TX case, right? Since it was filed directly with them? Or am I way off?

4
fapoo 4 points ago +4 / -0

It goes straight to them, but whether they take it up or not is a different question.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
loveshock 2 points ago +2 / -0

How often do States sue each other?

6
LiskaEman 6 points ago +6 / -0

Have we heard anything?? I’m on the edge of my seat

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
5
PoppinKREAM 5 points ago +5 / -0

Here's the preliminary statement from the document: (edit: apologies for formatting, the copy paste from the pdf is all fucky. I'm on mobile so fixing it without blowing work off for an hour is impossible lol)

Petitioners ask this Court to undertake one of the most dramatic, disruptive invocations of judicial power in the history of the Republic. No court has ever issued an order nullifying a governor’s certification of presidential election results. And for good reason: “Once the door is opened to judicial invalidation of presidential election results, it will be awfully hard to close that door again. . . . The loss of public trust in our constitutional order resulting from the exercise of this kind of judicial power would be incalculable.” Order, Wis. Voters All. v. Wis. Elections Comm’n, No. 2020AP1930-OA, at 3 (Wis. Dec. 4, 2020) (Hagedorn, J., concurring).

In seeking such unprecedented relief, Petitioners might be expected to present claims of the utmost constitutional gravity. Instead, the pair of claims they advance are fundamentally frivolous. Neither claim was pressed or passed upon below. Neither claim implicates a circuit split. Both claims are mired in procedural and jurisdictional defects that preclude this Court’s review. The first question—which seeks to raise Elections and Electors Clause challenges to Act 77—is not actually presented by this case. And the second question—which argues that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments in its application of laches—asks this Court to constitutionalize huge swaths of state procedural law without any credible basis in constitutional principles or this Court’s precedents.

Even if Petitioners could surmount these obstacles, they would still need to justify the relief they seek. This first-of-its-kind injunction raises major constitutional questions. Yet Petitioners address none of them. They do not explain how a remedy premised on massive disenfranchisement would accord with the Due Process Clause, which requires the counting of votes cast in reasonable reliance on existing election rules as implemented and described by state officials. Nor do they seek to square their position with the separation of powers, the Twelfth Amendment, or basic principles of federalism—all of which foreclose the injunctive relief that Petitioners seek here.

These failings also explain why equity stands as an insuperable obstacle to Petitioners’ application. “Democracy depends on counting all lawful votes promptly and finally, not setting them aside without weighty proof. The public must have confidence that our Government honors and respects their votes.” Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, No. 20-3371, 2020 WL 7012522, at *9 (3d Cir. Nov. 27, 2020). But Petitioners would throw all that to the wind. After waiting over a year to challenge Act 77, and engaging in procedural gamesmanship along the way, they come to this Court with unclean hands and ask it to disenfranchise an entire state. They make that request without any acknowledgment of the staggering upheaval, turmoil, and acrimony it would unleash. In issuing equitable relief, this Court rightly seeks to avoid inflaming social disorder. So to say that the public interest militates against Petitioners would be a grave understatement. Their suit is nothing less than an affront to constitutional democracy. It should meet a swift and decisive end.

5
Benzy8919 5 points ago +5 / -0

All I see is a lot of emotion and no legal arguements.