<blockquote>Texas’s delay in seeking an injunction should not be
rewarded, particularly when Pennsylvania voters relied upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s determination that the Commonwealth’s electoral system
which permitted the use of mail-in ballots was valid. </blockquote>
Ummm, evidence takes a while to compile, and that's an awfully rich statement from a state that took quite a long time counting/finding/printing votes.
There's mention of how these claims have already been brought before courts in the state and found to be inconsequential and baseless. They never even allowed evidence to be presented and thoroughly inspected!! This Georgia Sec of State and AG are going to keep digging their professional and political graves!
page 16 ... "in a nutshell" .... I personally like that saying but it's not very lawyerly. Seriously I keep looking up to make sure my browser is still on supremecourt.gov
They completely ignore the crux of the case, only legislators can change the manor and rules of elections.
rite? It's like cruising twitterland and reading reeeeeeeeeeeee's
“Baseless claims” they love that buzzword
wow
Sounds like it was written by a rigger!
Everything after the word "Since" is utter crap.
Guilty!
Already debooooooonked and dispoooooooooted, so please don't take this case.
<blockquote>Texas’s delay in seeking an injunction should not be rewarded, particularly when Pennsylvania voters relied upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s determination that the Commonwealth’s electoral system which permitted the use of mail-in ballots was valid. </blockquote> Ummm, evidence takes a while to compile, and that's an awfully rich statement from a state that took quite a long time counting/finding/printing votes.
There's mention of how these claims have already been brought before courts in the state and found to be inconsequential and baseless. They never even allowed evidence to be presented and thoroughly inspected!! This Georgia Sec of State and AG are going to keep digging their professional and political graves!
Exactly. Not allowed to present the evidence = there is no evidence x uhoh the SCOTUS umm THAT EVIDENCE WAS DEBOOONKED
"We didn't cheat"
They didn't deny cheating. They're saying you cant punish them for it.
omg I'm reading the preliminary statement... "dangerous" "alternate reality"... are we sure this is real and not babylon bee???
;>
Smells like... civil war?
page 16 ... "in a nutshell" .... I personally like that saying but it's not very lawyerly. Seriously I keep looking up to make sure my browser is still on supremecourt.gov