14
Comments (34)
sorted by:
6
r_u_srs_srsly 6 points ago +7 / -1

it's not a popularity contest.

who fucking cares about it.

Either the case had merit to be heard or it didn't before states chose a side. Nothing has changed.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
1
LibertarianWalkz [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

19 states? Why are other people saying 22?

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
1
LibertarianWalkz [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

So this changes nothing?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
4
TLDC 4 points ago +4 / -0

I think this was an unforced error on their part.

By submitting an amicus opposing the case, they actually illustrate the need for SCOTUS to hear the case and make a ruling.

Had they simply ignored it like it was no big deal, the court could have declined the case and cited state legislatures as the remedy.

Instead, they cite using STATE COURTS to interpret election law, which is Constitutionally mandated to fall to the LEGISLATURE of each state.

Obviously it doesn't guarantee anything will happen, but I think that it gives the Justices ample reason to at least hear the case.

The best part is that it is an original jurisdiction case and we get to present EVIDENCE.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
1
LibertarianWalkz [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Amicus?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
LibertarianWalkz [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh, so the Lib states are just stating their support? None actually -joined-?

4
JohnCocktoastin 4 points ago +4 / -0

Nah, its showtime.

2
LibertarianWalkz [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Enjoy the show.

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

If anything, i think it guarantees SCOTUS will see the case. They couldn't leave it at this state where everyone is at each others throats

-1
LibertarianWalkz [S] -1 points ago +1 / -2

That's good, but overall, that's more states against than supporting. Baaad omen.

2
fapoo 2 points ago +2 / -0

Dont see how

1
LibertarianWalkz [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Right.

1
Apersonofinterest 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’d say this was to be expected. If they don’t defend PA and the rest, we might come looking through their election processes.

I’m looking at you California.

1
Apersonofinterest 1 point ago +1 / -0

Is also like to add, I just said yesterday after a day of WINNING to expect bullshit today and here it is. Read their briefs. They got nothing.

1
Gmama2 1 point ago +1 / -0

All of the mob families opposed Rudy.

0
White 0 points ago +1 / -1

Where did you hear this?

1
LibertarianWalkz [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's all over New. Even now. What happens if there are more states against than for?

3
White 3 points ago +3 / -0

it doesn't change anything

1
LibertarianWalkz [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Phew.

-8
deleted -8 points ago +1 / -9
2
LibertarianWalkz [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

For what it's worth, it's not a popularity contest, and it's just Amicus.

Also, SCOTUS -HAS- to see this now, since it's gone hot. Let's just hope they don't cuck out against our favor.

0
deplorabetty 0 points ago +1 / -1

It is neither a "bad sign" nor unexpected. Of course states where they have probably been cheating for decades and don't want to be subjected to their own audits will come out in support of the ones who got caught red handed.

-8
The_General_Patton -8 points ago +2 / -10

This only forces SCOTUS to hear the case.

2
LibertarianWalkz [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

They can't ignore it now, huh?

-9
The_General_Patton -9 points ago +1 / -10

When one State sues another, they can't ignore. SCOTUS decides.

1
LibertarianWalkz [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

So it's FOR REAL going to SCOTUS?

-8
The_General_Patton -8 points ago +1 / -9

Watch this video for explanation...

https://banned.video/watch?id=5fd12ccf36e1a46b3eda83b0

-11
deleted -11 points ago +2 / -13