courts are punting the cases. In GA the court said they werent the right court to hear it, and said go back to state court. Nothing said about the evidence. They are trying to run the clock out. The evidence is there and valid. Courts are going to wait until after the inauguration to hear the cases then say they were right but too bad nothing they can do in the past, but going forward...
Thats not how its supposed to work in America
this is it - by SCOTUS tossing the Texas case, where there is already the disenfranchisement of the states that adhered to the constitution in their elections and the defendant states that didn't - a matter of absolute fact
they say Texas has no standing because they haven't been damaged by these other states - but yes they and the states that signed on with them have already been damaged by the contract between the states (the constitution) being violated by a conspiracy of rogue states - SCOTUS ruling implies there is no avenue for redress of grievance for when the contract of the constitution is being blatantly violated
SCOTUS is saying effectively that after you're murdered we'll consider the case about the dude that has a gun pointed to your head, and then maybe we'll agree, yeah, you got murdered - isn't that too bad, tsk, tsk
courts are punting the cases. In GA the court said they werent the right court to hear it, and said go back to state court. Nothing said about the evidence. They are trying to run the clock out. The evidence is there and valid. Courts are going to wait until after the inauguration to hear the cases then say they were right but too bad nothing they can do in the past, but going forward... Thats not how its supposed to work in America
this is it - by SCOTUS tossing the Texas case, where there is already the disenfranchisement of the states that adhered to the constitution in their elections and the defendant states that didn't - a matter of absolute fact
they say Texas has no standing because they haven't been damaged by these other states - but yes they and the states that signed on with them have already been damaged by the contract between the states (the constitution) being violated by a conspiracy of rogue states - SCOTUS ruling implies there is no avenue for redress of grievance for when the contract of the constitution is being blatantly violated
SCOTUS is saying effectively that after you're murdered we'll consider the case about the dude that has a gun pointed to your head, and then maybe we'll agree, yeah, you got murdered - isn't that too bad, tsk, tsk
this. you are one step closer to GEOTUS using the IA.