It comes down to: Does the Constitution, a contract between states, matter or not, when choosing president? --->Fucking genius, don't even have to get into the obvious fraud issues. Though the suit does talk about fraud and irregularities as a result of violating the constitution and laws due to relaxing Mail in safeguards
Comments (30)
sorted by:
The only parts fraud comes in to play is the inability to disprove the possibility of fraud, with a couple cases as examples. Trump making it sound like a criminal case to the media was a nice red herring.
On top of that, it does not seek as remedy that SCOTUS decides the Presidency which they would not do. But to punt back to the constitutional authority..namely the state legislatures. Brilliant.
The state legislatures could just say they are not awarding their electoral votes to anyone since their election was unconstitutionally handled. That would send it to house delegates which is a Trump lock.
The remedy of a contested presidential election is already codified in the constitution - house vote by state delegation.
Man i encourage all of you guys go to youtube and look up any MSM news coverage of this and drop some redpills and a thumbs down. The case simply on its face is a slam dunk. it comes down to 1 question, True or False? the states did not follow the constitution (State legislatures) when they rushed election law changes through months before the election
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/26/u-s-supreme-court-declines-change-wisconsins-voting-rules/3670662001/?fbclid=IwAR3kHn-_2_t6tEnB6_l3ZxnhYkegPAHNozBcYyWJ5UK4dyCXcZ4V0BV8MOs SCOTUS alrdy agrees with texas...
Toward the end of the article it says it was a 4-4 tie with the PA case. Roberts says he sided with liberals because it came from a state court and not federal court. Wtf difference does that make? He voted with the conservatives 5-4 In WI over the same exact issue. He’s so frustrating
Playing devils advocate, if the Supreme Court says that the states don’t have to abide by the constitution, does that set very dangerous legal precedent?
It means there no longer is a constitution, or a union.
It means that there no longer is a constitution, or a union, because the constitution is what holds it together.
and also built on common sense and facts
this is how trump beats them every time. they make something up and he smacks them down with TRUTH
unfortunately the plan to get the Left to come awake has to be bigger than that. it's not about us anymore fihting with each other. it's about all of us collectively fighting with china.
we have to cut them off at the neck. i have vowed to myself that i will do as much as i possibly can to not buy a single thing from China. we learned from Fox News that a little goes a LONG WAY. let's fuck the CCP up, pedes!
I have no doubt SCOTUS will rule in favor of Texas. I hope the ruling is 9-0 as that is what this country needs now.
“We’re gonna win. Watch.”
Golfing and there's even footage of him taking the time to pose with a couple getting married as he walked out
Total genius! Utah ag dropped out a month ago to join the Trump team and we never heard from him. I believe he was a primary engineer of this plan. It was dropped just short of the “safe haven” 35 days where they could still disputed certifications and had an inner circle of ags on the inside. The president intervened (joined the plaintiffs) because he alone represents the entire American people to show “harm” to them. Also as states v. States it is called original jurisdiction. Normally evidence from lower court cases cannot bring new evidence before scotus. However, original jurisdiction CAN bring new evidence. Brilliant!
Texas has been waiting for their chance to exit! Either we are stronger than ever or We invoke the clause in our state agreement. Your choice.
They will take a constitutional issue more seriously than fraud. Been expecting this since the beginning.
Judge in California ruled Newsoms EO for mail in ballots was an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power.
The one way I can see them arguing against us without saying the Constitution doesn't matter is to say that the changes that GA, PA, WI, MI made to the election process do not go against what the respective legislatures had passed. They could point to the state courts that denied our cases and say "well, they didn't think the changes were in violation of state law". Thoughts?
100% agree with this. I can’t believe the balls Snopes has to label a story like poll watchers being kicked out and windows blocked “False.”
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/poll-watchers-2020-election/
But here’s actual footage Google is censoring
https://youtu.be/vsFivm-WQco
https://youtu.be/UQNMfkAgxBY
Just because COVID exists doesn’t mean the Constitution suddenly doesn’t matter.
Dear protectors and interpreters of the Constitution:
These states violated the crap out of the Constitution.
Is this okay or not?
(Genius indeed, gosh I just WONDER how they'll rule, it's such a MYSTERY, hahahaha!)
SCOTUS will cop out and just reaffirm the right of state legislatures to remedy their election by appointing the electors if they don’t feel their own laws were followed. The pressure on the legislatures will be immense and they probably won’t send any electors to the electoral college. Then it goes to house delegations which go 26 to 24 for Trump. This will draw out all the way to January and Trump will be slow dripping all the dirt on Biden on the Dems to make it an easy decision for the house delegations.
The commies are afraid because they thought they could use the constitution to take us down, now it is backfiring and they don't know what to do. There is nothing they can do.