7911
posted ago by 3stepsahead +7913 / -2

The court's 5-3 ruling means that absentee ballots will be counted only if they are in the hands of municipal clerks by the time polls close on Nov. 3.

The justices determined the courts shouldn't be the ones to decide the election rules amid the coronavirus pandemic that is surging in Wisconsin and across the world.

"The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/26/u-s-supreme-court-declines-change-wisconsins-voting-rules/3670662001/

The court's 5-3 ruling means that absentee ballots will be counted only if they are in the hands of municipal clerks by the time polls close on Nov. 3. The justices determined the courts shouldn't be the ones to decide the election rules amid the coronavirus pandemic that is surging in Wisconsin and across the world. "The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/26/u-s-supreme-court-declines-change-wisconsins-voting-rules/3670662001/
Comments (623)
sorted by:
940
NaturalBornTexan 940 points ago +941 / -1

"Hello Supreme Court? This is the Supreme Court. Remember that thing we said?"

471
pithys 471 points ago +472 / -1

Remember the Constitution? Or is that just an old piece of paper now

264
kornesque 264 points ago +264 / -0

"Yellowed parchment my old friend, there's commies 'round here once again...."

114
deleted 114 points ago +115 / -1
76
deleted 76 points ago +76 / -0
72
deleted 72 points ago +72 / -0
35
PatrioticPAPede77 35 points ago +36 / -1

In CCP language - WANG WANG IN FANG FANG'S THANG THANG.

11
deleted 11 points ago +13 / -2
10
Vox_Dobad 10 points ago +11 / -1

Fang Fang's Wang Wang in Swalwell's Boof Rang

3
FreedomLover21 3 points ago +4 / -1

@PatrioticPAP That’s funny right there!

2
prettypatriot 2 points ago +2 / -0

This whole thread fell apart after that comment :P

14
slag 14 points ago +14 / -0

WI fed judge tried to weasel word around "manner" during questioning and delineate between implementation and manner of election. Not compelling (they are inextricably linked) I'm not a judge.

13
joker 13 points ago +14 / -1

In german please

35
TinyKraken 35 points ago +36 / -1

NEIN SCHWINEHUND

18
1776ThereIsaidIt 18 points ago +19 / -1

Schadenboner.

9
Diet_Loam 9 points ago +10 / -1

Delivering, Liebchen:

Jeder Staat soll in der von seiner gesetzgebenden Körperschaft vorgeschriebenen Weise eine Anzahl von Wahlmännern bestellen, die der Gesamtzahl der dem Staat im Kongreß zustehenden Senatoren und Abgeordneten gleich ist, doch soll kein Senator oder Abgeordneter oder jemand, der ein Vertrauens- oder besoldetes Amt unter der Hoheit der Vereinigten Staaten bekleidet, zum Wahlmann bestellt werden…

8
Cablespider 8 points ago +9 / -1

schadenfreude

2
Lacrymosa 2 points ago +2 / -0

Schwuchtel.

3
comoragh 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah but the constitution is old and there's a 99.9% survivable virus so just let us cheat and stop suppressing the votes of the dead and non-citizens, bigot.

2
deleted 2 points ago +4 / -2
1
CuomoisaMassMurderer 1 point ago +2 / -1

Wham ba lam whoa Black Betty

1
CommieCucker 1 point ago +1 / -0

And sending whores

10
kornesque 10 points ago +10 / -0

Patriots denied Pantifas last wish

5
angryamerican1964 5 points ago +5 / -0

and 30/06

2
Porkster420 2 points ago +2 / -0

I have multiple Spam cans of HXP 78 on standby pede!

2
ThatGuyWithThatThing 2 points ago +2 / -0

And even their own 7.62 Love me a good ak Commies got one thing right somehow But even a broken clock is right twice a day

2
smeshthisguy 2 points ago +2 / -0

Communism is good at exactly one thing: creating death.

1
ThatGuyWithThatThing 1 point ago +1 / -0

Extremely reliable death at that

Ak47 is like the trump train

Cant be stopped

1
grenades_and_ham 1 point ago +1 / -0

A warcomp helps.

5
AtomicShnoz 5 points ago +5 / -0

With the sound of SCOTUS

2
KiltedTailor 2 points ago +2 / -0

Good One, & someone is betraying their age!

2
PieceOfParchment 2 points ago +2 / -0

I gave y'all all the verbage y'all need. Get 'em.

1
kornesque 1 point ago +1 / -0

Username checks the kek out

2
ZeroDeltaTango 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yellowed parchment my old friend

Top kek

132
DagnyDocket 132 points ago +132 / -0

It’s a living document, they say. I heard Scalia speak years ago during law school, before Trump, in the thick of the liberal academic indoctrination. And Scalia loathed the lie of the living document. That was the day I really started to wake up.

96
deleted 96 points ago +97 / -1
57
FreedomSteak 57 points ago +57 / -0

Darth Vader Ginsberg was strong in the dark side. It kept her alive past her time.

28
theeyeshaveit 28 points ago +28 / -0

Only the good die young.

27
Porkster420 27 points ago +27 / -0

Because God wants to give the evil ones a chance to be saved from eternal damnation. That's why old socks of shit like RBG, Hillary, and Sheets Byrd hang around so long...

15
theeyeshaveit 15 points ago +15 / -0

I never thought of it that way. God definitely has a purpose for everything.

7
Kek_The_World 7 points ago +7 / -0

Salient point.

11
CokeOrPepe 11 points ago +11 / -0

Yeah, look at Soros.

11
deleted 11 points ago +11 / -0
8
CheckSix 8 points ago +8 / -0

Emperor Palpatine

4
FreedomSteak 4 points ago +4 / -0

I wouldn’t be surprise if Gorg Sorrows, Demon of the 8th Circle is running around with a few extra organs (locally sourced sic) keeping him alive and kicking past his expiration date.

2
3-10 2 points ago +2 / -0

Proof is George Soros.

1
USAF4Trump 1 point ago +1 / -0

Like George Floyd?

23
MexicanBeerFlu 23 points ago +24 / -1

We should erect a monument in her honor. Ironically. The left would seethe so hard

36
FreedomSteak 36 points ago +36 / -0

She died to save us from her sins XD

4
theeyeshaveit 4 points ago +4 / -0

LOL

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
1984-AnimalFarm-2020 2 points ago +2 / -0

Then their tears with fill the glorious moat that surrounds the monument.

1
CuomoisaMassMurderer 1 point ago +1 / -0

A pitchfork, with Soros' head on a pike?

14
FOUR_MORE_TERMS 14 points ago +15 / -1

I think the white hats had some wetworks on that one, and I support it.

7
blacksmith21 7 points ago +7 / -0

Pretty sure she was long dead and the White HAts controlled the date of her announcement.

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
11
Sargon 11 points ago +11 / -0

That and private health insurance a shitload better than the Medicare they peddle off on the rest of us.

11
cptunicorn 11 points ago +13 / -2

oh my god, she died and brought balance to the force... what the hell...

25
LrgYellowRyderTruck 25 points ago +26 / -1

Ginsburg is the biggest proof that they thought they couldn’t lose. They knew she was going to croak but they believed their own bs polls.

13
johnrambo 13 points ago +13 / -0

I guess she was getting freezer burned or starting to stink more than usual. Can you imagine the democraps faces when they realized the gig was up and they had to announce her death.

9
Veracious_deplorable 9 points ago +9 / -0

You can’t see her death as anything but a gift from God at this point.

1
NC_patriot 1 point ago +1 / -0

I guess they killed him so Obama could try to get in Garland.

1
Corse46 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think Garland was always a placeholder, they knew he wouldn’t advance. Bill Clinton promised the seat to Loretta Lynch in the tarmac meeting, and Hillary was going to put her there “when” she won

58
deleted 58 points ago +58 / -0
19
Junionthepipeline 19 points ago +19 / -0

It's a bummer the Democrats killed him

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
13
deleted 13 points ago +13 / -0
4
RallyinStJohnsWood 4 points ago +4 / -0

It can be changed, hence the amendment but their is a process and justices ruling against what is written, has been ruled in the past or their interpretation of founders intentions is not that process

I have trouble figuring out what you're trying to say here.

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
6
DontArkancideMeBro 6 points ago +6 / -0

They can’t amend the Bill of Rights. This is one reason they want Christianity to die out. Our rights are given by our creator, NOT by the government.

3
Porkster420 3 points ago +3 / -0

Sure you can, if you're a fuckin' democrat!

1
CuomoisaMassMurderer 1 point ago +1 / -0

We can kill them all, too.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
3
sinister_dwarf 3 points ago +3 / -0

Not OP, but I think what he’s saying is that the Constitution can be changed, but there’s a process for that. A justice can’t just rule against precedent or based on their personal feelings to change what the Constitution really means.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
12
BeerAndCope 12 points ago +12 / -0

I don’t mind it being referred to as a living document, if by that they mean it can be amended. If they mean it’s a living document that changes without being amended and actually changed then that is clearly insane.

7
Brobold 7 points ago +8 / -1

Amendments gave us a period of extreme violence and crime with the ban on alcohol. We don't need more amendments.

6
HankHayes 6 points ago +6 / -0

Amendments also gave us freedom of speech.

5
CoupeFL 5 points ago +5 / -0

The bill or rights was put in before all states originally ratified the Constitution, so that point really doesn’t stand.

Every amendment from women’s suffrage on was a loss for our country

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

That is in the Bill of Rights, which are self evident and bestowed upon us by God only.

3
Gesirisi 3 points ago +3 / -0

No, we are born with freedom of speech as a God given right. A government amendment doesn't give us that right. It lets the government know where our boundaries are.

1
HankHayes 1 point ago +1 / -0

We know that. However, no first amendment, no freedom of speech in the USA.

2
Brobold 2 points ago +2 / -0

The difference is the Bill of Rights defines what the government can't take away. The 21st Amendment was the complete opposite.

4
HankHayes 4 points ago +4 / -0

The 18th was prohibition of alcohol, the 21st repealed it - but I get what you're saying.

It was community activist women of the day that gave us Prohibition. No surprise there, lol.

5
BeerAndCope 5 points ago +5 / -0

I’d say amendments for term limits, 9 scotus judges, and limiting intelligence agencies power would be nice to add. Plus, times change. Someday we might want to limit the government in other ways.

-1
bighomiebeenchillin -1 points ago +1 / -2

nigga that is prolly da dumbest shit ive ever saw a nigga say lmao sit down son

10
Patriot25 10 points ago +10 / -0

They want it to be a living document so they can kill it....as they are known to do.

5
Londonrain 5 points ago +5 / -0

And make it vote Democrat

3
DontArkancideMeBro 3 points ago +3 / -0

Top kek

5
deleted 5 points ago +6 / -1
19
TrumpTrainChoooChoo2 19 points ago +20 / -1

Oh that old thing? Well sources familiar with the founding fathers’ thinking can confirm they didn’t intend to stick to it in times of a pandemic. Checkmate drumpftard.

11
FOUR_MORE_TERMS 11 points ago +11 / -0

But muh raycizzm

8
JohnWayne2 8 points ago +8 / -0

Very anonymous sources, no doubt.

14
fingerofkek 14 points ago +14 / -0

If the constitution no longer applies than there is no reason to not split up.

2
Junionthepipeline 2 points ago +2 / -0

We need to let new england cali or and ny at the least leave

4
SaltyKrakenBalls 4 points ago +4 / -0

Sad part is, all counties in NY, other than the cities, are deep RED... The wife and I are out of here once we zero in on a good freedom loving spot to raise our daughter

2
CuomoisaMassMurderer 2 points ago +2 / -0

We could kick them out via trebuchet.

5
deleted 5 points ago +12 / -7
5
I_Love_45-70_Gov 5 points ago +5 / -0

Huh?

7
deleted 7 points ago +9 / -2
2
I_Love_45-70_Gov 2 points ago +2 / -0

I get that; however, I do not see quote you posted above.

12
Patriots_Spike 12 points ago +12 / -0

That's because it's as real as Trump calling our vets losers.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
4
I_Love_45-70_Gov 4 points ago +4 / -0

Update, Feb. 21, 2011: The author of the Capitol Hill Blue story has now withdrawn it. Doug Thompson messaged us to say:

Doug Thompson: This is to let you know that the piece on Bush and the Constitution has been changed and reads:

“This article was based on sources that we thought, at the time, were reliable. We have since discovered reasons to doubt their veracity. For that reason, this article has been removed from our database.”

I no longer stand behind that article or its conclusions and have said so in answers to several recent queries. In addition, I have asked that it be removed from a documentary film.

4
thesas 4 points ago +4 / -0

Quote from Bush. He was and is a POS

5
DontArkancideMeBro 5 points ago +5 / -0

Don’t believe everything you read on the internet

-Abraham Lincoln

1
I_Love_45-70_Gov 1 point ago +1 / -0

I get that. I am simply questioning the propinquity of this absurd quote to Bush.

I rarely ask for sources, but this "quote" is just straight bs from the looks of it.

3
CuomoisaMassMurderer 3 points ago +3 / -0

propinquity.

Damn! That's a winning scrabble word if I ever saw one.

2
I_Love_45-70_Gov 2 points ago +2 / -0

Dad (RIP) taught me that word when I was eighteen . Never found an opportunity to use it until tonight.

Figured: what the fuck...why not.

Fuck Coumo and his propinquity to Chyna

95
Cincinattus1776 95 points ago +96 / -1

To those unfamiliar:

SCOTUS LOVES precedent.

38
deleted 38 points ago +38 / -0
35
IsrorOrca 35 points ago +36 / -1

Kagan is by far my favorite of the left justices. She USUALLY has a good sense of reason in her rulings. It'll be interesting. MAYBE we'll get lucky with her.

17
aaafirefly123 17 points ago +17 / -0

She at least has enough sense to know that her actions have consequences.

17
The_Litehaus_Abides 17 points ago +17 / -0

I respect the fact that she's always willing to attend President Trump's State of the Union addresses. Remember, Ginsburg wouldn't go.

14
LearnedButt 14 points ago +14 / -0

I'm imagining the hell Satan has planned for her in the fiery pits down blow. An eternity of sitting in the SOTU listening to a never ending Trump Speech.

2
littleman 2 points ago +2 / -0

Good. Better would be having to listen to every talk Clarence Thomas has given about the Constitution and having his opinions and dissents perpetually read to her.

7
Porkster420 7 points ago +7 / -0

Hard to go when you're in the morgue pede.

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
3
deleted 3 points ago +4 / -1
6
I_Love_45-70_Gov 6 points ago +6 / -0

Milkers on a dude, dressed like a chick trying look like a dude.

11
Meddlesom 11 points ago +11 / -0

Patton Oswald with udders.

5
I_Love_45-70_Gov 5 points ago +5 / -0

Thanks for ruining my date night...lol.

6
RallyinStJohnsWood 6 points ago +7 / -1

There are no women on the Internet.

3
Londonrain 3 points ago +4 / -1

G.uy I.n R.eal L.ife

5
FOUR_MORE_TERMS 5 points ago +6 / -1

Bruh

3
WikkiWikki420 3 points ago +4 / -1

Bruh!!!! I had to see what she looked like. And while she does have quite the set of milkers.... I was stumped as to if Kagan identified as a she/her/female or if Kagan identified as IT.

Kagan is the only person I have ever seen where IT's head is bigger at the chin than at the top of the skull.

http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Elena-kagan-donkeyhotey.jpg

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
0
CuomoisaMassMurderer 0 points ago +2 / -2

I'd rather "get lucky with" MILF ACB

I'll see myself out

21
Nomoralcompass89 21 points ago +21 / -0 (edited)

I said this earlier in a post. I think it'll go 7-2 Sotomayor and Breyer dissenting.

10
lasTRUMPcard 10 points ago +10 / -0

I keep reminding myself that Roberts knows all the FISA applications that have been approved. They were waiting for this moment.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
5
deleted 5 points ago +6 / -1
11
Dahnald2020 11 points ago +12 / -1

I believe Scalia recommended Kagan to Obama. He at least respected her legal mind. The wise Latina is another story.

14
Gmama2 14 points ago +15 / -1

Yes she gets it right sometimes and isn't as rabidly partisan as RGB or Sotamayor.

10
Nomoralcompass89 10 points ago +11 / -1

Scalia did. Its also fact that Kagan rules with Alito 60% of the time.

5
Phil_DeGraves 5 points ago +5 / -0

Yeah, Motorvotermayor is going to vote for FraudJoe, most likely.

10
Damseldoll 10 points ago +10 / -0

There is no way Kagan rules against a fraudulent Joe Biden steal. She is a leftist to the core.

-1
deleted -1 points ago +16 / -17
17
deleted 17 points ago +22 / -5
-11
deleted -11 points ago +10 / -21
10
deleted 10 points ago +16 / -6
-7
deleted -7 points ago +7 / -14
2
grenades_and_ham 2 points ago +2 / -0

Damn, you went straight for the nuke. Didn't even bother to work your way up.

12
Necrophagist-2018 12 points ago +13 / -1

Down voted for the disgusting praise that satanic waste of a cunt Ginsberg got.

-5
deleted -5 points ago +2 / -7
9
CorneliusFitchpins 9 points ago +9 / -0

try legalized ritualistic child sacrifice.

4
Londonrain 4 points ago +4 / -0

Underage pedofilia at age 12

8
deleted 8 points ago +9 / -1
3
Onehellofagoy 3 points ago +5 / -2

Cool it with the antisemitic remarks!

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
6
CorneliusFitchpins 6 points ago +6 / -0

big yikes

2
Listen_FAT 2 points ago +2 / -0

Would you take a bullet for all the fetus Ruth is sleeping on right now?

13
deleted 13 points ago +14 / -1
8
Cincinattus1776 8 points ago +9 / -1

Wrong John Roberts. Pretty sure that's talking about the guy from Fox News.

7
Spaceforce2033 7 points ago +8 / -1

Not according to Lin Wood

5
DaddyDonald 5 points ago +5 / -0

Why would the deep state want kompromat on a single reporter when they basically control the entire media apparatus?

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
FOUR_MORE_TERMS 3 points ago +3 / -0

No one knows.

5
Gmama2 5 points ago +5 / -0

He's probably getting major pressure.

5
Pederella 5 points ago +5 / -0

Remember during the last three confirmations how the Dems had hissy fits about stare decisis...follow the precedents... . Pepe Farms Remembers.

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yup. It allows them to pass the buck in a way and take the heat off of them directly, and let’s be honest, they will have a whole hell of a lot of heat on them because of the corrupt media no matter what decision they make, so they might as well do what everyone knows is the not only legal thing to do, but more importantly, the moral thing.

58
Clarence_Thomas 58 points ago +58 / -0

The right justice died

18
Mavdick96 18 points ago +18 / -0

Name checks out.

15
BasteSpuds 15 points ago +19 / -4

Put a lid on a yid.

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
10
Clarence_Thomas 10 points ago +10 / -0

Funny, you spelled satanic wrong

7
deleted 7 points ago +8 / -1
4
Listen_FAT 4 points ago +4 / -0

"The wrong kid died!"

2
USAF4Trump 2 points ago +2 / -0

And she never paid for drugs! Not once!

26
deleted 26 points ago +27 / -1
1
OJ_Epstein 1 point ago +2 / -1

It sounds like they’re asking for martial law to be declared and for GA, MI, PA, WI, and AZ to be occupied by the military until the China conspirators are rooted out and tried for treason.

11
Thingthing22 11 points ago +12 / -1

That was decided before ACB too. Lol.

377
Huck_Farris 377 points ago +378 / -1

Sounds like a precedent to me right there.

234
MangoRage 234 points ago +235 / -1

It is a precedent. It's THE precedent. You'd just have to prove which ones were late. So, any ballot that got there after polls shut down are invalid. End of story.

99
slag 99 points ago +101 / -2

Re-read:

The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.

If accurate, general implications re legislative dominance not just mail in after the 3rd.

52
deleted 52 points ago +52 / -0
62
3stepsahead [S] 62 points ago +62 / -0

SCOTUS already wrote who does and doesn't set election laws. Paragraph 3.

37
deleted 37 points ago +37 / -0
12
Doctor_Strangelove 12 points ago +12 / -0

Yup. There are no true doomers now, only shills pretending. Everyone knows this was stolen, even the left. Their side now has the actual doomers. Though most are still under the spell of the fake news narrative.

There will be a hell of a lot more crying leftists in our future, and that is a wonderful thing

10
lasTRUMPcard 10 points ago +10 / -0

Comfy pilled

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
18
Ivleeeg 18 points ago +18 / -0

In other words, all those mailing of ballots to people who didn't request them, all those extensions given by courts and governors, the signature verification being waived by governors, the ballots being opened before the law prescribed, are all illegal.

In more simple terms: Trump won. Big.

3
Londonrain 3 points ago +3 / -0

This ^^ all of it.

6
slag 6 points ago +6 / -0

They really just recited the constitution. Seems like an easy job.

35
Outsidein406 35 points ago +35 / -0

In the states that are being sued, the decision to mass-mail out ballots and change election rules was made not by the legislature but by Secretaries of State, governors, a friend of someone who worked in the tax office, whatever. So by the Supreme Court ruling against the four states in the TX suit, they’re not just limiting themselves to saying the late ballots were unconstitutional. They’re saying the whole election was unconstitutional. And that precedent could apply to a lot more than just the four states in this suit.

9
deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0
9
deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0
3
Krauter 3 points ago +3 / -0

So, would MI, PA, WI, GA et al be unable to send any electors or does the decision revert back to the state legislators who to send in case of an invalid election? I am worried that SCOTUS rules that the elections are invalid, but that the state legislators are then the ones who decide which electors to send (or to send none), and then cuck out and still send Biden electors due to „will-of-tha-people“.

7
inquimous 7 points ago +7 / -0

It means all ballot items are questionable.

5
joker 5 points ago +5 / -0

THIS is the most beautiful comment!

27
ghostsage 27 points ago +27 / -0

It's not just the late mail-ins, any election rules made by parties other than State Legislature illegitimize the election. These states have attempted to certify a result that is the product of an illegitimate and unConstitutional election process.

11
3stepsahead [S] 11 points ago +11 / -0

Exactly 💯

2
RallyinStJohnsWood 2 points ago +2 / -0

dingdingding

11
deleted 11 points ago +11 / -0
10
The_Yoyo 10 points ago +10 / -0

From what I could tell all the provisions and new rules that various Governors and Sec of States made to allow the mail in ballots or other changes to the election in the name of "covid" were not valid. Any changes to election rules (or what constitutes a legal vote) needs to be passed through the state legislatures. The 4 states in the lawsuit did not do any of this (You could say other states as well) so those changes are not legal and thus any votes that were cast under those "rules" should be deemed illegal and not counted.

I read a post earlier today that New Jersey made changes as well but the made their changes to allow mail-in through their state legislature so in that case the mail in ballots would need to be counted since they were deemed legal. Proving they were fraudulent would be a different matter.

Again the big crux in the Texas lawsuit is the main point is that these votes are fraudulent but that new rules were put in place that violated the Constitution which should make those votes invalid.

8
istirabalegina1 8 points ago +8 / -0

You have to wonder if when GEOTUS advised not to vote by mail-in ballot he was aware of this strategy all along--that the mail-in ballots would be disqualified--but didnt want to show his hand at the time, so that Biden voters would disqualify their votes in mass haha.

2
Hawkman 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well good god damn I think you’re right.

2
The_Yoyo 2 points ago +2 / -0

You have to believe that some of it was that - if they invalidate all the mail in ballots across the country where laws were not passed by state legislatures then the final vote tally could be massive in his favor, both electorally and the popular vote. I dont think SCOTUS will rule that for every state in the country though, but they may at least in the 4 defendant states.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
3
AmericanCitizen4Life 3 points ago +3 / -0

Can we go back to California and remove mail in ballots from here as well? Our legislator and some congressmen were pretty upset that Gavin has changed the Elections laws without going threw the legislators.

"By signing Assembly Bill 860 into law, Newsom defused the principal legal argument against the universal vote-by-mail argument. Plaintiffs argued he had exceeded his authority by implementing a sweeping change to election management without consulting the Legislature."

https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/06/18/california-lawmakers-pass-november-mail-ballot-bill-with-surprising-gop-support-1293679

1
slag 1 point ago +1 / -0

Looks like they avoided the extrslegal problem by getting the cucked legislature to pass. Whether the election was conducted according to statute is another question (like how other states deviated from specific statute). State legislature could pass a law that says Cali decides electors based on a beer pong tournament, if that's the manner the elected legislature chooses.

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

Phoneglish

37
3stepsahead [S] 37 points ago +38 / -1

Its the reason not the ruling that matters. Read the last paragraph.

8
undef 8 points ago +8 / -0

^^^^^ 1000x THIS!

6
undef 6 points ago +6 / -0

^^^^^ 1000x THIS!

4
I_Love_45-70_Gov 4 points ago +4 / -0 (edited)

You mean this?

In the Pennsylvania case, Roberts sided with the liberals. He wrote Monday that he voted the other way in the Wisconsin case because the lower court ruling came from a federal judge, not a state court, as it did in the Pennsylvania case.

4
TheDynamis 4 points ago +4 / -0

Did you happen to notice if this was cited in the Texas suit?

26
deleted 26 points ago +26 / -0
19
BasteSpuds 19 points ago +19 / -0

In a sane world any ballot received after midnight of election day gets tossed. With the exception of citizens that are overseas and they were post marked on or before voting day

5
slag 5 points ago +5 / -0

Any ballot cast and counted in contravention of the state election statute would be illegal. Schemes to alter statute outside the legislature would be unconstitutional. The constitution has remedies for illegal elections built in.

2
559throw 2 points ago +2 / -0

The only argument against this is that it can be abused by whoever is in charge of delivering ballots. If they're partisan shitbags like they seem to already be they could intentionally slow-walk the ballots so they end up late, but in a plausibly deniable way like "Oops! Guess all these Republican votes don't count. I just got stuck at a train crossing and couldn't make it on time. Darn!"

3
jealousminarchist 3 points ago +3 / -0

Ye, that is why you vote in person.

If you decide to let someone deliver your vote for you that happens.

2
IHeartMyDoggy 2 points ago +2 / -0

How did they do it before the 2020 election? Did they count mail in ballots after the polls closed?

1
TheBeeMill 1 point ago +1 / -0

You’re conflating when the ballots were reported with when they were received. Plenty of legal ballots were reported after midnight too. Only the ones RECIEVED after midnight should go

14
Rothbard 14 points ago +14 / -0

But they backdated. Plus Im sure they havent seperated them to say these batch of 50,000 were the 3am ballots we scanned 3 times.

18
MAGA_Flocka_Flame 18 points ago +18 / -0

If they mixed them all up to prevent separation, throw them all out

4
Junionthepipeline 4 points ago +4 / -0

Only fair way is all polluted counts are out

7
Ogcarvattack 7 points ago +7 / -0

Doesn't matter the fact they were accepted after the fact by decree is enough.

12
deleted 12 points ago +12 / -0
9
LearnedButt 9 points ago +9 / -0

upTrump for primary sources.

2
aaaronsohn 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's annoying how they keep talking about how covid was this big safety issue.

5
BasedRetard 5 points ago +5 / -0

I ain't got no book learnin', but I think you might be right, Lawyerpede.

175
Filial_Piety_is_key 175 points ago +176 / -1

Well, put the final nail in the rumors and make it 6-3

101
3stepsahead [S] 101 points ago +102 / -1

Now that we have ACB. Roberts even sided with the conservatives.

96
stjimmy92 96 points ago +97 / -1

Bet he won’t this time.

56
Sturm43s 56 points ago +57 / -1

Hopefully it won't matter. I think ACB being in on Bush v. Gore is significant beyond just being on "our side." She saw the vote stealing attempted by Gore during that fiasco and now is at the center of a hurricane of fraud. Prayers for wisdom and constitutionality for her and the others.

24
Texas_Rangers 24 points ago +25 / -1

Here there’s 3 factors to consider:

Is the law on our side? Yes—-state legislatures are supposed to Make election law.

Was the illegal law changes enough to effect the election result?

Should give total relief by overturning results?

We need 5 Justices to say yes to all three.

Then we need a 4th thing to go our way—-will overturning t he results still result in a Trump win?

11
IJustWannaLurk 11 points ago +12 / -1

"will overturning t he results still result in a Trump win?"

This is a hot topic of discussion in my house.

What is the path of least resistance to accomplish this?

6
RallyinStJohnsWood 6 points ago +8 / -2

It's moot. I hope they do the right thing... but, Insurrection Act.

5
jealousminarchist 5 points ago +5 / -0

How exactly? The math seems pretty straight forward, don't PA MI WI GA hold something like 50+ votes?

7
Cincinattus1776 7 points ago +7 / -0 (edited)

They have 62 (PA: 20, GA: 16, MI: 16, WI: 10) votes all combined. Trump needs any 3 of these states to win.

2
DemsFuckKids 2 points ago +2 / -0

b/c GITMO for child fuckin??

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0 (edited)
1
powershellder 1 point ago +1 / -0

Takes a special kind of stupid to knowingly side with the losers when treason is on the table.

10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
9
Junionthepipeline 9 points ago +9 / -0

He asks china what they want

2
Splitcart 2 points ago +2 / -0

Roberts: "I am the moderate one. That means if it's a close call, I have to side with the leftists. But if it's a slam dunk, I can side with the right.""

2
MAGA_Flocka_Flame 2 points ago +2 / -0

“Until there are 9”

164
deleted 164 points ago +165 / -1
97
Sturm43s 97 points ago +99 / -2

This may be why the TX case is the main strategy for the "non-kinetic" remedy to the stolen election. I think Ted Cruz and Jay Sekulow, knowing the Constitution and SCOTUS methodology, crafted this perfectly. Meaning, not only would the court have to throw out the constitution to find for the defendants, but they would have to overturn their own precedents as well. Bravo!

32
sixfingerdildo 32 points ago +32 / -0

Double chech mate?! Unpossible...

Actually, it like tic tac toe vs a 5 year old...

14
KrakenFurry 14 points ago +14 / -0

Tic-tac-toe but we get the first two moves. It's inevitable

9
SicSemperTyrannosaur 9 points ago +9 / -0

Dems would be the artards drawing a fourth column to steal the game.

16
deleted 16 points ago +16 / -0
12
slag 12 points ago +12 / -0

they would have to overturn their own precedents as well

Not a problem for Roberts (see Obama care tax creativity and recent reversal). He's not as pivotal now though, so maybe the republic has a chance.

7
Junionthepipeline 7 points ago +7 / -0

We still need to arrest a few thousand politicians and officials including elected ones police and military at a minimum

3
NeverInterruptEnemy 3 points ago +3 / -0

They need to hear the case first homie.

25
non-entity 25 points ago +30 / -5

Yea, but they never allow the constitution or law apply if it benefits Trump, especially Roberts the cuck bitch.

8
StunLikeAnAntelope 8 points ago +8 / -0

Yeah, but they never allow the constitution or law apply if they can use NSA data to blackmail a Justice.

5
deleted 5 points ago +6 / -1
2
kebabdrogo 2 points ago +2 / -0

Because this was for local elector elections.

1
AlexAmore 1 point ago +1 / -0

4? I'm curious what those are.

Thanks.

111
Staatssicherheit 111 points ago +115 / -4

This exact sentence was in the Texas filing.

12
GainesvilleFlorida 12 points ago +12 / -0

This guy reads. Honestly I didn’t read it but constitutional law is not my forte.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
64
clottin_eye_joe 64 points ago +65 / -1

Seems pretty straight forward to me

15
NeverInterruptEnemy 15 points ago +15 / -0

Help me out then...

What ballots do we know were not in hands of clerks by polls close?

I mean the obvious counting and counting was BS, but I am not making the relation to practice issue here.

PA says (lies) that the segregated ballots between before and after. They say after was insignificant (probably also lie). But I must be missing the “BOOM” here.

16
GainesvilleFlorida 16 points ago +16 / -0

Simple chain of custody, boom, proof.

Ruhroh says Scooby, I don’t have proof of chain of custody.

I can’t imagine the sleep I would lose as an election clerk sweating bullets if in couldn’t prove chain of custody and I was suddenly asked to prove all the ballots were legit.

2
NeverInterruptEnemy 2 points ago +3 / -1

Ok, but I didn’t read anything about chain of custody.

What are you referencing?

2
Left-Austin-4-freedo 2 points ago +2 / -0

🤨

2
NeverInterruptEnemy 2 points ago +2 / -0

I know there are chain of custody issues in reality, I haven’t seen any written complaint about them, is it in the Texas lawsuit? Did PA MI WI GA set aside chain of custody laws because of Covid?

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

From watching the various hearings for hours on end. Sorry too late to search it.

9
deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0 (edited)
-1
NeverInterruptEnemy -1 points ago +1 / -2

Ok, so it’s the Article2 comment.

Yea. Ok. We all agree Article2 is real and it’s bad to violate.

My issue is the responses today all day they didn’t violate (yea they did).

So the case SCOTUS would need to take is did the changes violate state law? There is some ambiguity there.

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

They have scanned photos (with timestamps) of each piece of mail should they need it. I'm guessing they have other proof we haven't necessarily seen yet, in addition to affadavits.

1
130percent 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're reading the wrong part.

8
PNW_PEPE 8 points ago +8 / -0

Same.

Then again, so are a lot of things. The mental gymnastics the left is going to at this point is astounding. When you are void of morality you have nothing to lose by lying and trying to cover everything you say. I don't have it in my blood to lie. I suck at it so bad. Yet these people build their entire lives on it. It's sickening.

49
xBigCoffinHunter 49 points ago +50 / -1

Yeah, they got around that by mass back dating them. You’d like to think there are protections in place on that postal equipment to prevent that. I know the IRS wouldn’t like it if my taxes were back dated to be on time.

23
Captinhowdy45 23 points ago +23 / -0

Well every piece of mail is photographed so it should be easy to prove right. It shouldn't matter what the post mark is show us the photos. Unless they back dated the phot equipment also. Regardless it can be tracked.

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
8
Captinhowdy45 8 points ago +8 / -0

Yes it is legit I moved a few years back. When I did a change of address I inadvertently checked the box to get an email of a picture of the mail coming to my house. Lots of pictures of junk mail in my Email weekly.

6
ThyPowerToSave 6 points ago +6 / -0

That's interesting you bring that up. The host of the Thomas Paine podcast said that on yesterday's episode. He said the USPS is being investigated since all mail is photographed there should be records and someone had to pay a lot of money. Possibly people in postal service dirty

5
Captinhowdy45 5 points ago +5 / -0

Feel free to look it up.

https://www.usps.com/manage/welcome.htm

"Get Informed Delivery Now you can preview images* of your mail and manage your incoming packages on one dashboard without entering tracking numbers. From the Informed Delivery® dashboard, you can also sign up for text or email notifications, schedule delivery alerts, request Redelivery, enter USPS Delivery Instructions®, and more."

4
NeverInterruptEnemy 4 points ago +4 / -0 (edited)

I know. I get spam of my junk mail now too.

Occasionally it’s handy.

3
ActionExpress 3 points ago +3 / -0

Its good when you receive something that you had no idea was coming. (And is important) If that piece of mail had gone missing then you'd have no idea.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
50red 1 point ago +2 / -1

And you trust USPS because?..

2
Captinhowdy45 2 points ago +2 / -0

Never said I trust the USPS or anyone for that matter. I have some faith in PATRIOTS TO STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR OUR FREEDOMS.

7
RussianAgent13 7 points ago +7 / -0

If the postal inspector general's office aren't traitorous commies, they are already conducting an investigation to find out which ballots were backdated.

The inverse is also true.

4
Junionthepipeline 4 points ago +4 / -0

They are most likley commies and those photos are gone.

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
2
Voltage 2 points ago +2 / -0

Go to a post office tomorrow. They are fucking mad houses. I had to go the other day and waited in a line that was a good 40 feet and there was no social distancing.

2
mvrak 2 points ago +2 / -0

Backdating doesn't work when the language is "in the hands of clerks"

48
undef 48 points ago +49 / -1

Texas will win.

Then we have to worry about how those 4 state legislatures will vote.

30
45DRAGONDENERGY 30 points ago +30 / -0

Wisconsin will be tough. Even though Republican majority, weak willed. We need a rally AT THE HOUSES OF THESE REPUBLICAN REPS so they do the right thing.

11
NeverInterruptEnemy 11 points ago +11 / -0

PA is good i think. Judging by the amicus they filed for Texans. But the others might get pressured to go Biden anyhow.

5
ThaDtothaOtothaN 5 points ago +5 / -0

Isn't it one vote per state when this Texas case wins as nobody will be able to get 270 so its a house vote that we have majority?

5
Cincinattus1776 5 points ago +5 / -0

The way I see it, either these 4 states elections are voided and no one gets a 270 majority, or SCOTUS tells each of these 4 states' legislatures to appoint their own electors pursuant to Article 2 Section 1 of the CONUS.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
43
thatguynobody 43 points ago +44 / -1

I like it!

29
deleted 29 points ago +31 / -2
20
brainphreeze 20 points ago +20 / -0

It'll be more than just the "REEEEEEcuse", the threats and deplatforming is gonna ramp up to levels previously unseen

10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
14
deleted 14 points ago +14 / -0
4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
8
joker 8 points ago +8 / -0

Brace yourselves

riots are coming

10
KYMAGApatriot1 10 points ago +10 / -0

Why should she recuse herself? Is there a time limit on when and what a new justice can vote on?

14
deleted 14 points ago +14 / -0
5
KYMAGApatriot1 5 points ago +5 / -0

Nope. But I’m sure Dems think she will rule against them. Dems, for some reason, think they own SCOTUS so that’s why they hate that Trump got to select SCOTUS justices during his term. BTW, I was being facetious about the time limit. She could rule any way she decides as soon as she officially joins SCOTUS. Just Dems think she should wait a “respectable” amount of time.

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
2
Junionthepipeline 2 points ago +2 / -0

She also has a family to threaten

5
FreeBased1 5 points ago +5 / -0

The loonies know Thomas don't give a fuck.

PLUS, of they really tried to get h to recuse because of Biden, they'd have to ADMIT Biden was a racist asshole to Clarence Thomas during his confirmation.

This is how it's gonna go down: 6-3 for Texas and any other state that joins. Of course the 3 dissenters will be Breyer, Kagan and the wise latina Sotomayor.

What happens next, I don't know.

But I do know how this ends

SPOILER ALERT

Trump wins!

1
MegaMind 1 point ago +1 / -0

Covid 19 on concervative judges may be their next option.

1
FreeBased1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Dude, if RGB can be dead for 3 years while her pickled brain sat in her chair and her clerks wrote everything for her, I think the Justices can handle some #ChynaVirus

We're talking about Constitutionalists here; they aren't gonna back down. You think Kavanaugh will back down because of a cold? Clarence Thomas?? Heck no

29
WilleZumLeben 29 points ago +31 / -2

Ah yes, the October Kraken.

18
MAGA_Flocka_Flame 18 points ago +20 / -2

It has a lot of tentacles and I’ve seen enough hentai to know where this is going

10
ThunderInYourHeart 10 points ago +10 / -0

Enjoy this well deserved upvote.

6
Mayhem 6 points ago +6 / -0

Kurt?

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
24
ObongoForPrison2020 24 points ago +24 / -0

"In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan gave that notion short shrift, noting Wisconsin's Republican-run Legislature hasn't met since April. Extending the deadline for absentee ballots should have been allowed, she wrote.

'On the scales of both constitutional justice and electoral accuracy, protecting the right to vote in a health crisis outweighs conforming to a deadline created in safer days,' Kagan wrote."

HAHAHAHA HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK

19
deleted 19 points ago +19 / -0
13
ObongoForPrison2020 13 points ago +13 / -0

It really does give credibility to the idea that literally anybody could do that fucking job.

5
Junionthepipeline 5 points ago +5 / -0

The retarded justice

5
NeverInterruptEnemy 5 points ago +5 / -0

Sotomayor is way worse than Keegan.

1
Junionthepipeline 1 point ago +1 / -0

Apperantly they all suck chinas balls now

23
ChiKAGo 23 points ago +24 / -1

Wow. legitimately, wow.

How have I not heard of this until now? I'm no SCOTUS nerd or anything, but that is an unbelievably recent, unbelievably relevant ruling.

7
YoureFakeNews 7 points ago +7 / -0

SCOTUS nerd lol. Is that a thing?

2
Mike_Pede 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah, we knew about this. Doesn't help.

NEEDED THAT WISCONSIN CUCK LEGE TO AWARD US THE ELECTORS.

16
Anon6992374 16 points ago +16 / -0

Well hello there. You look like very welcomed news.

15
uniowner 15 points ago +15 / -0

What a surprise the 3 democrats go against the constitution for some touchy feely reasons!

5
Tuckclusive 5 points ago +5 / -0

damn fang fang be getting around

15
Rothbard 15 points ago +15 / -0

So they would basically have to admit they were wrong a few months ago. Even if Roberts is that much of a cuck ACB can step in.

Seems positive.

2
Mike_Pede 2 points ago +2 / -0

How so?

2
Rothbard 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well 5 - 3 of scotus basically upheld the constitution in October. So theyd be basically saying since October Ive chamged my mind the constitution doesnt matter. Only Roberts is cucked enough to do that. But if he switches its 4 - 4 in which case ACB is now a justice so add her and its 5-4.

15
Rattler1775 15 points ago +17 / -2

Its called precedence.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
14
Crop1w 14 points ago +14 / -0

Doomers BTFO - does anyone really think the Supreme Court is going to say "yeah okay, we'll let blatantly unconstitutional acts slide this time but don't do it next time, m'kay"?

3
shadows_of_the_mind 3 points ago +3 / -0

I read that in Mr. Mackey’s voice

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
3
Crop1w 3 points ago +3 / -0

Correct. It will be a true test of character and loyalty for all of the Supreme Court Justices. The question will be whether their paramount loyalty is to the Constitution or is to themselves. Do they fear backlash or civil unrest for the sake of upholding their oaths or will they completely rip up the constitution for a temporary and uneasy peace?

14
Indianapede 14 points ago +14 / -0

Let’s end this and get Trump official again.

14
skf93 14 points ago +14 / -0

I hope this is brought up to them.

9
3stepsahead [S] 9 points ago +9 / -0

It's recent. They got this. They'll definatly have it if we get a sticky

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
13
weezysweasel 13 points ago +13 / -0

This makes sense since Trump said stop counting "I won" and Alito said put those votes on the side. He knew he was relying on precedent. Nov 3rd is Nov 3rd and thats it. Besides, if dem fuckers coordinated pennsylvania beforehand for months to pull off the absentee and mail voting after releasing covid on the world, they should be held to have to have counted all votes on the 3rd and the 3rd only.

4
Nessie402 4 points ago +4 / -0

The real beauty of the SCOTUS 5-3 Wisconsin decision is that it is precedent. The four states also provided a clear dividing line for the ballots that can be counted as received on Election Day. They all stopped counting in unison. When they quit counting, President Trump was way ahead on all four States. So far ahead Biden could never catch up.

11
BestTimeToBAlive 11 points ago +11 / -0

In Miami, all absentee ballots had to be counted already OR at the supervisor of elections office by 7pm on election night.

The drop-boxes were gone 2 days before the election. If you wanted to vote that way on November 1st or 2nd or 3rd, you had to drive your ass to the municipal building and drop that ballot off.

By the way, there’s never any parking avail in that area either. Lol

11
deleted 11 points ago +11 / -0
6
ElliPede 6 points ago +6 / -0

sAfEr dAyS

5
NeverInterruptEnemy 5 points ago +5 / -0

I miss that .001% additional safety I used to have!

3
Big_Boss_Stones 3 points ago +3 / -0

It really gave me peace of mind.

1
mvrak 1 point ago +1 / -0

Literal insanity.

11
Nuke_Melbourne 11 points ago +11 / -0

Next week is going to be so much fun. Soak it in pedes

10
leroy1 10 points ago +10 / -0

This is awesome!

10
BeerAndCope 10 points ago +10 / -0

So SCOTUS already ruled this, these states ignored the ruling and did it their own way specifically going against the SCOTUS ruling, and are now saying SCOTUS can’t overturn it now because it’s already done and it would be a big mess.

It honestly doesn’t even seem possible that SCOTUS could not side with Trump on this. This must have been why so many close to Trump have been so confident Trump will win. They’ve known this was coming all along and knew it was already ruled in their favor a few months ago. Holy shit.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
2
BeerAndCope 2 points ago +2 / -0

I’m sure the state legislatures want cover to do that. If scotus rules in Trump’s favor on anything in the lawsuit that should be enough cover for them to say the way the state government handled the election was unconstitutional so they are picking electors themselves.

2
Trumpette1 2 points ago +2 / -0

Do you think they were unawares abou the ruling?

10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
5
mvrak 5 points ago +5 / -0

Now you know how many judges are activists. They love deciding based on emotion and finding some way to justify it. They have no fear and no logic.

3
FreedomLover21 3 points ago +3 / -0

@ravioli You Definitely Should! As I was reading your comments, I thought you were a lawyerpede😉

8
BarronTrump2032 8 points ago +8 / -0

Trump SCOTUS is best SCOTUS.

8
jshelton5 8 points ago +8 / -0

No wonder they’re shutting bricks.

8
Centipedealicious 8 points ago +8 / -0

The Wisconsin federal judge today completely failed in his analysis. I feel so much better,

7
ThunderInYourHeart 7 points ago +7 / -0

I saw “Boom”, “SCOTUS” and “ruling” and about shit myself.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
11
3stepsahead [S] 11 points ago +11 / -0

They're referring to any and all election rules.

7
Nessie402 7 points ago +7 / -0

Wow. Wisconsin law required all mail in ballots be received in the election offices and counted on Election Day. President Trump wins Wisconsin.

6
digitalintrigue 6 points ago +6 / -0

6-3 if ACB had been confirmed at the time

6
PresidentErectHunter 6 points ago +6 / -0

5-3 Who were the three dissenters? Those butch lesbians scare me. :-(

1
Burkmcbork 1 point ago +1 / -0

Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. All radical liberals to the same degree as Ruth was. Kagan and Sotomayor were Obama’s picks.

6
TheFreeSpeechRadical 6 points ago +6 / -0

Did someone say precedent?

6
CastlesMadeofSand01 6 points ago +6 / -0

The part that bugs me is that the state legislatures could end this tomorrow if they get off their asses and did their job.

This whole thing is a political game of chicken. The cowards in the state legislatures are waiting for the Supreme Court to allow them to do what the Constitution clearly spells out. This whole Supreme Court case is political theater.

Even if the court takes this case on (big if, with any Pontius Pilate court), the very best outcome we could expect is at the court says: "Hey, state legislators. Get off your ass and vote for electors."

Which is exactly what the State Legislatures could do right now. Truly mad.

5
CarlinsGhost 5 points ago +5 / -0

Checkmate!

5
PlateOwner 5 points ago +5 / -0

Marc Elias: "I can't believe I never heard of this."

5
FORMERCHILDSTAR 5 points ago +5 / -0

So, unelected rogue election officials, members of the executive branch, and partisan judges can't willy nilly make laws to benefit one part of the population at the expense of the other based on political ideology during an election? Okay, good to know. Thank you, Supreme Court.😃

4
neurojerk 4 points ago +4 / -0

I live in a very liberal area. I better start boarding up my windows.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
3
Trumpette1 3 points ago +3 / -0

Figure out your escape now. I would

4
Fordheartskav 4 points ago +4 / -0

Does this have any bearing on that Wisconsin hearing today? sounded like the judge was cucking out

4
GenerallyRight 4 points ago +4 / -0

Then why in the hell wasn't that their ruling in the Pennsylvania case before the election?

1
wadewatts 1 point ago +1 / -0

There was no PA case before election

3
deleted 3 points ago +5 / -2
1
3stepsahead [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

The only paragraph that matters is parapraph 3. Who makes election laws.

2
deleted 2 points ago +4 / -2
3
CaptainChrisPBacon 3 points ago +3 / -0

SO We Won Even Before The SCOTUS Hears The Texas Case. LMAO! Dumbasses are going to get Rekt by the SCOTUS!

3
DroolingElmo 3 points ago +3 / -0

I am so feeling the WIN now.

1
NeverInterruptEnemy 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well can someone fucking explain it to me!?

Where are all the definite after polls ballots at? What is the “boom” here?

PA says they stopped when Alito said segregate. They all counted for days but did they accept new without a doubt?

3
DroolingElmo 3 points ago +3 / -0

Alito will want to hear the Pa case after this one. They fkd with his order and ignored it. You don't blow off a scotus order.

But the Texas case deals with that saying PA you shit in your bed lie in it. Ie

You were ordered to segregate ballots, now we will never be able to call your election fair, or know who actually won, therefore, the Constitution says your legislature gets to vote what they believe was the will of the people.

1
NeverInterruptEnemy 1 point ago +1 / -0

PA in their response said they did segregate the ballots. Do we have proof they did not?

2
DroolingElmo 2 points ago +2 / -0

If we take them at their word they directly violated the written order of a Supreme Court Justice. Wonder how pissed Alito is...

3
minotaurbeach 3 points ago +3 / -0

BOOM!

They should have changed the law when Bush was president.

3
JesusisKing 3 points ago +3 / -0

Is that cited in any of our suits

2
3stepsahead [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not sure. Probably need to do a control f through each suit.

3
Dimedog 3 points ago +3 / -0

Precedent

3
Maylam1974 3 points ago +3 / -0 (edited)

Since, am not American if Supreme Court ruling back in October that absentee ballots was not supposed to counted after November 3 why they still count in New York and battle ground states?