18
Comments (19)
sorted by:
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
Puppy528 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lawyers sure seem to love the word "mockery".

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

Liars -- oops, I mean lawyers -- gonna lie.

1
Schroeder09 1 point ago +1 / -0

It worked yesterday in pa.

2
Nowsthetime 2 points ago +2 / -0

No. It did not. They denied one thing not the whole case.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
Schroeder09 2 points ago +2 / -0

The Democrats' idiot response that basically said "yeah we broke the law but nobody else has done anything about it ever before and you shouldn't either."

1
America_Good_LA 1 point ago +1 / -0

He's saying from their prospective a trash response got them a success in yesterdays PA case.

1
Mitchell4 1 point ago +1 / -0

This amici brief focuses on: the Constitution does not make this Court the multidistrict litigation panel for trials of presidential election disputes. Pursuant to the Electors Clause and 3 U.S.C. § 5, state legislatures have made state courts the tribunals for presidential election disputes. That is their resting argument. Don't know enough constitutional law to know how far this will get them.

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

Bunch of crap yet the courts still buy it.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
Schroeder09 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yup. If these cock RINOs on the Supreme Court let them get away with this I bet Biden has given them a deal that he won’t Pack the supreme court if They just let him steal this.

1
bekkiluvsit 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is the Dems' response, but rather an Amici brief in support of the Dems. It's equally bullshit because they are saying the case cannot be heard by the U.S. Supremes, which is false on its face.

1
sak951 1 point ago +1 / -0

I read through this quickly, it seems the crux of their argument is the Supreme Court shouldn't take this case due to an unprecedented overstep in the name of federalism. They claim the states courts are the remedy and if required as an appeal of the state supreme court to the supreme court is the remedy as in Bush vs Gore.

There is no mention what so ever on the accusations of how said states circumvented the state laws

1
Csherm 1 point ago +1 / -0

As always, need the lawyerly pedes to translate...

1
LemonTree 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, what I get is this is PA business, TX shut up?