Texas has not demonstrated interest...HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED INTEREST?! - Thank you SCOTUS, that is a great gravestone line MOTHERF-CKERS!!!
(www.thegatewaypundit.com)
⚠️ HIGH ENERGY⚠️
Comments (31)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
Pray for the ability to aim well.
It's only a low blow in the late rounds, the fights not over. It hurts, but you have to keep going.
Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me.
Maybe we can give them all Covid
learn how to lick communist boot and speak Mandarin?
it will help pass the time living in eternal lockdown and losing all right and private ownership.
Meanwhile they are going to listen to Goldman Sachs?
To be honest, as an Australian in Australia, who wins the US presidential election affects me more than a person in say... California. State's Rights are thing the USA, but for a country like Australia... we're a puppet for the US Administration. The US President sets foreign policy, trade laws etc and we fawn and jump on command.
I've been blackpilled since the early 2000s. The elites hate the people. They always have. And the impediments the American Founding Fathers created have all been eroded away.
Yeah no one has standing. Its amazing. Out of 300 million plus people can we find the one fucking person the SC thinks has standing and get them to file?
The Texas case literally wasn't a thing three days ago. Let's pick up on all the cases we were following prior.
Remind me again of the benefit of having 5 conservative originalists on the Court?
The one granting Goldman case is a slap to the goddamn face.
Meanwhile look who's Lawsuit HAS been granted: GOLDMAN SACHS. To stop people from using class action to sue them for cheating. Look no further to see who owns this nation.
Defund SCOTUS. They server no purpose anymore.
Hmm. If state officials are not obligated to obey the law, then why should anyone else be? Can we refuse to deny the court refusals?Fourteenth Amendment requires equal protection under the law.
But, even more interesting a question is this: If the SCOTUS has ruled in a way which denies the validity of the U.S. Constitution, since that is the very document which gives them authority to rule, can we deny the outcome of their ruling if they invalidate the provisions of the document?
How can Texas not have a demonstrated interest? A federal election impacts every state in the federation, therefore they each have a vested interest, due to national security, military, and economy issues. That would be like doctors telling a patient that since the gangrene is only in the foot that the rest of the leg is not in danger, or cancer being in one organ is not capable of killing the entire person. Shame on SCOTUS!
I really thank you for your comment because this is my exact line of thinking.
I cannot wrap my head around the SCOTUS comments. I really wish someone who understands legal analysis can explain to me.
When I first read the Texas case I thought, "This is really good, this is explaining what the problem is in a way I wanted to, but didn't know how."
The problem isn't going to court "muh evidence!" The problem is, PA and other states violated their own election procedures in a way that disenfranchises voters in other states.
We all agreed to certain rules, like for example, election day being on Tuesday in November. But so many states let ballots keep coming in after that date. And these states didn't even vote on it. It was just pushed through. This is just one example.
18 states came to support Texas because they also had this line of thinking. Why do the courts keep saying the cases lack standing? How? We aren't even all playing by the same rules.
This may be passing the hot potato back down though it's still problematic.
Lets consider that reasoning for a moment what might be possible. If a state can run its election however it likes then why not let people vote as much as they like, foreigners vote, illegal immigrants, etc? Why not simply let them pick a random ballot and that's who wins? Really anything is possible. Why not just let them ignore the count altogether and just declare who they like the winner?
If they relinquish constitutional requirements for states in running their elections then they are not upholding the constitution.
I believe they should not be involved in many aspects of how a state runs its election but surely that terminates if they do so unconstitutionally.
TX should appeal. The appeal should be very simple, "pull your head out, or we secede from the union"