11
posted ago by Zesca ago by Zesca +11 / -0

They voted 9-0. Before this Texas case existed(a day ago) this is what we were relying on, and now a major pathway to victory is gone. If anything, I think this is a domino, but in the wrong direction, in that it sets the precedent for SCOTUS to reject any and all election related cases. We have to start planning in the case of TX case being denied.

Comments (27)
sorted by:
5
cannoli9116 5 points ago +5 / -0

Because they didn't deny the case.

5
CyrusKingOfAnshan 5 points ago +6 / -1

Case wasn't denied. Preliminary injunctive relief was, no?

4
chicago_prisoner 4 points ago +5 / -1

Injunction was shut down, not the case.

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
2
MAGAliths45 2 points ago +4 / -2

Why would you give someone a parking ticket if they just got arrested for double homicide?

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

Whats great is the shills shot their wad and got deported which will make future posting much easier. TDW set a trap for the shills thats all that happened. We are still a go to win in court!

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
tremendous_trump2020 1 point ago +1 / -0

They haven’t said they won’t take the case. They only denied one motion (for injunctive relief). The case is still pending.

1
Anon331717 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because SCOTUS doesn’t take redundant questions. They will consolidate because of Texas

2
tremendous_trump2020 2 points ago +2 / -0

Because they didn’t throw out the case. They only denied ONE motion to decertify PA. That doesn’t mean they’re not going to hear the case or make some other ruling, they’re just not going to decertify a state “before exhausting all other options.”

2
handpeople 2 points ago +2 / -0

I thought so too. The actual case regarding the merit is still pending. Injunctive relief is only granted if no other legal options exist. The fact it was 9-0, likely indicates that other legal options exist, so this was procedural. Now, if you see SCOTUS flat out reject a case (not request for injunctive relief) based on the mail in process, that would be the major blow. So far, I have not seen that to be the case here.

2
M16A4 2 points ago +3 / -1

OP is a faggot

1
TrumpForeverEver 1 point ago +2 / -1

Yup. Check out his shill posts

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +3 / -2
1
ovitz 1 point ago +2 / -1

The case wasn’t denied. A motion in the case was denied.

1
RealHunterBidenAMA 1 point ago +2 / -1

From what others on here have implied it sounds like they did not deny the case outright. They denied a request for preliminary injunction to decertify the results. Which means that they won’t decertify the results before hearing the case but the case is still waiting to be heard. What do I know though? Everybody everywhere has something different to say

1
Disagreeable 1 point ago +2 / -1

Learn to read carefully and wait for the full story to come out before deciding how you feel and offering up panicky words.

1
Bout2gitsome 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because the Texas case addresses exactly the same thing+ 3 OTHER states as well.

SCOTUS won’t hear 2 nearly identical cases.

1
Huck_Farris 1 point ago +2 / -1

PA case denied would be a major blow.

Except that it was not. A particular motion was denied; case is still pending and hopefully will be decided on its merits.

1
rangoon03 1 point ago +1 / -0

Don't listen to fake news. They had this headline saved for days to misinform their idiot viewers. If the Texas suit didn't happen, I'd be more worried about this decision. But its just rudnant with the Texas case. Thank god for Texas (and the other glorious states who joined the suit). I'd love to hand PA a loss after they are celebrating this "victory"

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
0
patriot71 0 points ago +1 / -1

The Texas case has broader scope for essentially the same complaint. There was no point in taking the PA case which was narrower in scope. They decided to take the whole enchilata at once. Also, looks like other states are joining in on the Texas case.

0
watchman87 0 points ago +1 / -1

i think they decided to go with the states as a whole suing, bigger stage, more poeple as a country are involved

0
quinbus51 0 points ago +1 / -1

They'd rather deal with theTexas case target than 4 separate filings... They really don't want to rule on Pennsylvania's own constitution and whether state officials broke their own constitution.

TheTexas filling is dealing with the issues the supremes want to address...