This is, however, EXACTLY the type of argument we want to be hearing from them. Honestly, I can't believe it's coming this early... Not only is this argument 'invalid' but it is directly addressed in the formation of the Electoral College. If the electors votes aren't legal, they can be tossed. This is an obvious strong arm move. If anybody is going to stick up for the US it will be The Supreme Court (I'm hoping lol) :-)
beat me to it. jokes aside, it really is true. this is what it has come to. not everyone is willing to put in the effort and has the intelligence to be good at their career at a high level. diversity hiring just entrenched these guys getting the job anyway.
Unfortunately cuck jurists like Roberts have bought into it completely.
The 2004 WA state gubernatorial race was stolen from Republican Rossi just this way. The judge admitted there was evidence of fraud (there were many precincts with more votes than voters) yet essentially just said eh, I'm not turning over the election.
Yeah this is the worst argument I've ever heard. I mean it probably won't even convince Roberts. I'm betting only the "wise latina" buys it because her magic latina ethnicity tells her to go with feels.
I think it is saying that it's a bad idea to have Legislatures take their power back because it could take away power from the vote and could set a bad precedent. I could actually see Democrat run Legislatures taking advantage of this in the future. The problem is that this is the exact reason the constitution gives so much power.
Democrat legislatures have already done this, more or less.
Think about it - after a state goes blue, they change all the voting laws to allow massive amounts of cheating and usually never go red again.
They don’t need to reject the electors selected by the “popular vote” in their state, because they have ensured the popular vote will always be blue, regardless of the will of the people.
Look at CA, IL, NY, etc. they will never go red again (without federal/judicially enforced anti fraud measures, which are hopefully forthcoming), the Democrats have made sure of that.
especially PA where they got smacked around last time and was red and now Philly is phrantically trying to be like Jersey and NY. They really need to get smacked down here and stay red.
If the situation arose where the election was not free-and-fair, I would expect Democrats to challenge this as well. The Constitution outlines this specifically. But it's not about using the power that state legislators have here for flexing power and authority, it's about doing the right thing.
But I guess this is why electoral votes is better than popular. It keeps things on a local level and easier to monitor issues. Because if the local representatives truly represent the values based on that region. It shouldn't matter that if the representatives get to choose because the region would have voted that way anyway. Sure it becomes a problem if your representative is a crook but its a lot harder rig an entire nation especially if most of them are honest.
We have a sleazy lawyer that represents our local community and backs a corrupt president for the board.... this is exactly how he writes when trying to divert away from illegal shit the pres is doing and he's trying to back up.
Yep, if you didn't want the Supream Court to destroy trust in the election systems, you shouldn't have run the most obvious fraud attempt in US history thus destroying trust in the election system.
Sadly enough, this had been what other courts are saying... Yes we believe there were fraudulent ballots...but there were also legal ballots and we don't want to disenfranchise those... Smh
funny how all the usual snark bullshit stops when they replied to the SCOTUS. None of the you be raycist crap...just begging that mommy wont spank them
What the ass clowns in my state government, Pennsylvania, don't understand, is the way they ran the election in my state, REQUIRES OPENING PANDORA'S BOX!
I’m an attorney. Let me weigh in on a technical matter: the draftsman is citing a lower state court - which does not have precedence in the SCOTUS.
SCOTUS looks to its own past decisions for guidance. Not lower state court decisions. The fact that this suit mentions the Wisconsin ruling tells me there is NO helpful SCOTUS case law for the Defendant.
Also a legalpede, and that Wisc situation jumped out at me early as well. To pile on, how quickly the response went toward public policy arguments was another indication of weakness.
Can you as a legal pede give me a run down about what will happen if this suit is won, and what is being argued? I will return the favor with any math questions you have.
Are they citing a ruling from Wisconsin State Supreme Court, 4 days ago? Like, "The only precedent we have to justify ruling in our favor is the unconstitutional precedent we made up 4 days ago".
This is why the CIA controlled media has been playing pretend that Biden is elected and it's all a done deal, as soon as they realized Trump wouldn't concede and he would fight, that was their trick. It is all about putting pressure on the courts.
Their problem is it hasn't worked as well as they hoped, people all over the world know the election was stolen from Trump, more people wake up to that obvious reality daily as well. One of my cousins in the UK, someone that doesn't even follow UK politics let alone US politics was asking me this morning about how it was stolen.
If they really want to see Pandora's box opened, then go ahead with the steal and there will be a lot of dead corrupt media and politicians, that is for sure.
I strongly urge everyone that can to make it to DC this weekend for the stop the steal rally, show them how many people really know what is going on.
i read most of the file, to me it seemed unprofessional. It was more like a one sided argument with too much opinion and not enough constitutional alignment .
in PA to change the election laws, it has to go through twice in the legislature, get printed in two local publications in all counties, and then go to a popular vote by the people. Not just make an Act 77 and then on top of that get rid of the rules that were in that act to protect the bullcrap.
Guess what. Once you commit fraud in an election, it is awful hard to close that box again. The loss of public trust in our constitutional order resulting from that kind of fraud would be incalculable.
LOL! What the fuck. Thats like saying "Please don't investigate the murder of my ex wife. Do it for the sake of me and my new 20 year old wife"
It really is like that and a very poor, actually totally invalid, argument...
“Let us cheat an election now so we can continue to do so in the future”
Muh feelz!
This is, however, EXACTLY the type of argument we want to be hearing from them. Honestly, I can't believe it's coming this early... Not only is this argument 'invalid' but it is directly addressed in the formation of the Electoral College. If the electors votes aren't legal, they can be tossed. This is an obvious strong arm move. If anybody is going to stick up for the US it will be The Supreme Court (I'm hoping lol) :-)
They have no other argument. It's that bad for these commies.
They actually sent a veiled threat to the SCOTUS. Stupid motherfuckers are toast.
HAHA!
Exactly what they are saying. Allow any governor, at any time up to an election, to make new rules to cheat in any election in the future.
Underated comment.. lol
dey wuz unpresetented an sheeiiiit
^
beat me to it. jokes aside, it really is true. this is what it has come to. not everyone is willing to put in the effort and has the intelligence to be good at their career at a high level. diversity hiring just entrenched these guys getting the job anyway.
Probably.
Unfortunately cuck jurists like Roberts have bought into it completely.
The 2004 WA state gubernatorial race was stolen from Republican Rossi just this way. The judge admitted there was evidence of fraud (there were many precincts with more votes than voters) yet essentially just said eh, I'm not turning over the election.
You're probably right but that's a terrible judgement then - he should be impeached on that alone.
It's one thing to let a state suffer from its own corruption. It's another to let the entire country suffer and to endanger the future of a republic.
States can vote to force a state to leave, can't we?
Members of Congress can be expelled so that state no longer gets a vote.
I like the thought of that- "your state gets no vote until you have secure, verifiable elections."
I did do this crime, but it would be really upsetting if I were punished for it, so I humbly submit that I should allowed to get off scot free
Yes, Mom, this is a cookie, and, yes, that is the cookie jar...but, look: you can't punish me because...er...think of the children?!?
think of the mental scarring i'll have from being punished!
Yeah this is the worst argument I've ever heard. I mean it probably won't even convince Roberts. I'm betting only the "wise latina" buys it because her magic latina ethnicity tells her to go with feels.
I think it is saying that it's a bad idea to have Legislatures take their power back because it could take away power from the vote and could set a bad precedent. I could actually see Democrat run Legislatures taking advantage of this in the future. The problem is that this is the exact reason the constitution gives so much power.
Democrat legislatures have already done this, more or less.
Think about it - after a state goes blue, they change all the voting laws to allow massive amounts of cheating and usually never go red again.
They don’t need to reject the electors selected by the “popular vote” in their state, because they have ensured the popular vote will always be blue, regardless of the will of the people.
Look at CA, IL, NY, etc. they will never go red again (without federal/judicially enforced anti fraud measures, which are hopefully forthcoming), the Democrats have made sure of that.
especially PA where they got smacked around last time and was red and now Philly is phrantically trying to be like Jersey and NY. They really need to get smacked down here and stay red.
Florida is finally normalizing because DeSantis purged many of the corrupt election officials in Southern counties.
Had he sat on his hands, we would not be even looking at the SCOTUS to fix this shit.
We would all still be speculating whether or not elections were legit, while awaiting Uncle Sniffy's certain inauguration.
yeah you almost got that methhead as gov last time
Raised in Texas as a teen. Lived all over the world (Florida, too). Texan again, and will fight for and be buried in this Great State.
DeSantis is about as based as it gets....
So glad that pervert's pics were spread around the internet.
Has his wife filed for divorce yet?
true, I heard nothing about him after that night.. probably 9000 just like him in this country's government
Exactly.
If the situation arose where the election was not free-and-fair, I would expect Democrats to challenge this as well. The Constitution outlines this specifically. But it's not about using the power that state legislators have here for flexing power and authority, it's about doing the right thing.
But I guess this is why electoral votes is better than popular. It keeps things on a local level and easier to monitor issues. Because if the local representatives truly represent the values based on that region. It shouldn't matter that if the representatives get to choose because the region would have voted that way anyway. Sure it becomes a problem if your representative is a crook but its a lot harder rig an entire nation especially if most of them are honest.
More like “Please don’t investigate the murder of my wife! It will upset our kids! Think about the kids!”
"Don't think about the murder, think about the friends we made along the way"
Scraping the barrel when they are only citing a Wisconsin ruling!!!!
LOL... THIS is the BEST that they could come up with? LOL
Scary part is they still have a chance to with this shit argument
What moron wrote this?
The loss of public trust has already happened. The exercise of judicial power is what can restore the trust.
When you come from a position of illegality and deceit, you respond to a SC Justice, exactly like this.
^^^^^ SPOT ON ^^^^
We have a sleazy lawyer that represents our local community and backs a corrupt president for the board.... this is exactly how he writes when trying to divert away from illegal shit the pres is doing and he's trying to back up.
Literally trying to gaslight the Court about the state of public trust. Bad argument.
Yep, if you didn't want the Supream Court to destroy trust in the election systems, you shouldn't have run the most obvious fraud attempt in US history thus destroying trust in the election system.
Here Here!!!
Where?
Over hear.
Yes!
CHEERS!!!
“To avoid disenfranchisement we must endorse disenfranchisement.”
I basically knew they had no legal leg to stand on... but Ho Li Fuk. This is complete weak sauce. The Chewbacca defense makes more sense than this...
The Chewbacca defense haha!
I had to look up the Chewbacca defence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.
Sadly enough, this had been what other courts are saying... Yes we believe there were fraudulent ballots...but there were also legal ballots and we don't want to disenfranchise those... Smh
No way!!! Did they totally fucking say that!?!??!?
Why does chewbacca live on a planet full of little monsters?? Makes no sense!
Love South Park references.
yeah they just wrote that on the Liberty Bell and said Franklin said it!!!
REEEeeeEEEEEE
I used the disenfranchisement to destroy the disenfranchisement.
funny how all the usual snark bullshit stops when they replied to the SCOTUS. None of the you be raycist crap...just begging that mommy wont spank them
They're just warming up. They'll get around to calling Alito and Thomas racists during oral arguments.
don't spank me mommy!!!
"even if federal laws of the constitution have been violated" They're PANICKING!
they just admitted it!!! So how does that vibe in the Texas case ??
Combine the cases, set oral argument, rule.
GOOD GOOD GOOD
Is this supposed to be a plea? I've seen roaches ask for forgiveness with more finesse than this piece of crap.
HAHA!
PA: "MY BABY DIDN'T DO NUFFIN"
DINDUNUFFIN
Judicial invalidation has already been done in the Commonwealth of PA.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1994-02-20-1994051024-story.html
This is not Pandoras box being opened whatsoever. It's not even new. We have judicial precident.
This goes to the baltimoresun main page for me...
Try this google link.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1994-02-20-1994051024-story,amp.html
https://archive.vn/i21Jc
Thanks pal!
https://archive.vn/i21Jc
What the ass clowns in my state government, Pennsylvania, don't understand, is the way they ran the election in my state, REQUIRES OPENING PANDORA'S BOX!
One might even say that the PA government has already opened it.
It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas
I’m an attorney. Let me weigh in on a technical matter: the draftsman is citing a lower state court - which does not have precedence in the SCOTUS.
SCOTUS looks to its own past decisions for guidance. Not lower state court decisions. The fact that this suit mentions the Wisconsin ruling tells me there is NO helpful SCOTUS case law for the Defendant.
Exactly! They can't cite Bush v Gore, it would hurt their case.
Also a legalpede, and that Wisc situation jumped out at me early as well. To pile on, how quickly the response went toward public policy arguments was another indication of weakness.
Thanks for your perspective.
Can you as a legal pede give me a run down about what will happen if this suit is won, and what is being argued? I will return the favor with any math questions you have.
Drop those drawers, Shapiro.
Alito is taking his belt off.
You thieves deserve every bit of what’s coming.
Love how they say there is a constitutional order that will lose public trust when they have already undermined the constitutional order.
they are scared, once one falls the rest will follow
Loss of constitutional order? YOU FUCKWITS VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION AND YOU SAY THAT?
They basically admitting it’s all fraud.
Paraphrased: “we can’t prove it’s legit and you’ll likely find it’s all based on fraud, and exposing that would make people doubt the process.”
Guess what fucksticks - WE ALREADY DO
Already DO and SHOULD!
I like how PA bases their argument on a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling.
You have no power here!
Holy shit, they're straight up saying "PLEASE DONT OPEN THAT DOOR"
These cucks literally cited a lower court ruling from 3 days prior as precedent
It’s actually a politely worded threat. Do not fuck with us because you will not like what happens after.
Are they citing a ruling from Wisconsin State Supreme Court, 4 days ago? Like, "The only precedent we have to justify ruling in our favor is the unconstitutional precedent we made up 4 days ago".
They can't cite Bush v Gore, it would make the argument against their own argument.
Then maybe you shouldn't have cheated. It's awfully hard to close that box now for good reason.
They should of thought of that before they cheated.
Pelosi was all "Republic [this]" and "Republic [that]" when she announced the sham impeachment too. :-(
This is why the CIA controlled media has been playing pretend that Biden is elected and it's all a done deal, as soon as they realized Trump wouldn't concede and he would fight, that was their trick. It is all about putting pressure on the courts.
Their problem is it hasn't worked as well as they hoped, people all over the world know the election was stolen from Trump, more people wake up to that obvious reality daily as well. One of my cousins in the UK, someone that doesn't even follow UK politics let alone US politics was asking me this morning about how it was stolen.
If they really want to see Pandora's box opened, then go ahead with the steal and there will be a lot of dead corrupt media and politicians, that is for sure.
I strongly urge everyone that can to make it to DC this weekend for the stop the steal rally, show them how many people really know what is going on.
i read most of the file, to me it seemed unprofessional. It was more like a one sided argument with too much opinion and not enough constitutional alignment .
They say that as if the court would just nullify it willy nilly for no Constitutional reason. They make no sense.
Alito no gonna take that. I hope they nuke those motherfuckers
smack Philly into Camden
Camden, America's true SHIT HOLE! My wife is from Lansdale. She was born in Philly. She hates Camden!
would love to see Philly get reduced to Camden. and I live in PA. they dont deserve their own history anymore
Ending slavery was dramatic, and disruptive. But it was the right thing to do.
Desegregating schools was dramatic and disruptive
ALLOWING MASSIVE FRAUD AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE/INTIMIDATION IN YOUR SHITHOLE STATE WAS DRAMATIC AND DISRUPTIVE
Very well said.
exactly.. they forced lawyers to stand down and not defend Trump. These people are totally vile in Philly
How can this possibly not make the SCOTUS even more suspicious of the fukkery afoot in PA? lol
Too bad.
Yep, using their go-to strategy of using emotions and fear. It's how they get anything, facts never align with them.
If they cared about the public trust, they wouldn't have unilaterally changed the rules.
in PA to change the election laws, it has to go through twice in the legislature, get printed in two local publications in all counties, and then go to a popular vote by the people. Not just make an Act 77 and then on top of that get rid of the rules that were in that act to protect the bullcrap.
total farce.
I am surprised they just didn't reply with.. let us get away cuz orangemanbad
Alito should take it, wipe his ass with it and then say "Thank you for that; now bring me a relevant legal argument please."
Would the loss of public confidence in our election system be worse than it already is?
Where’s my box cutter
Lol and they cite a Wisconsin court decision from last week (which is probably going to Supreme Court shortly anyway)
Guess what. Once you commit fraud in an election, it is awful hard to close that box again. The loss of public trust in our constitutional order resulting from that kind of fraud would be incalculable.
Are they really trying to argue you that? Are you kidding me?
So their precedent is a chickenshit opinion from Wisconsin from 4 days ago?
BING BING BONG
When my kid says I don't need to check their room....