Even beyond the strong Constitutionality questions, and Trump's team trying to make a path to SCOTUS with it, there are the massive frauds that haven't been addressed.
Don't listen to the Doomers. This isn't yet at the ammo box!
Comments (20)
sorted by:
Yup this doesn’t feel like the real plan. Why would all three of the justices Trump appointed vote against him? There’s more to this story still.
Because they didn't judge the case by its merits, only by the injury caused to Texas (which was none, as Texas voters retained their franchise and will be represented).
This was 100% going to happen IMO, this is 500+ years of common law doctrine - parties who aren't injured can't sue.
That said, there needs to be a path for the states to initiate stuff like this because relying on the President and the Insurrection act as the ultimate backstop to corrupt states violating the Constitution is a poor way of doing things.
We wanted strict Constitutional Justices and that's what we got. In a weird way, I'm kind of glad that they didn't bastardize the Constitution to fit their political leanings. All they said was that the wrong party initiated the lawsuit. Fix that and go back.
Exactly! Screw the doomers on here tonight. Until Trump concedes, neither will I. Hell even if he does I still probably won’t!
Did you read the briefs? We’ve been around a long time. Suits between states are not new. History is the part of the story most people are missing. History is always a big part of the story in SCOTIS cases. It’s one of my interest in reading the cases.