TLDR: They said exactly what they meant, and meant exactly what they said. Nothing more and nothing less.
I'm no lawyer, but my interpretation is that it's hidden behind legal speak and some can be inferred by their actions before the dismissal. Basically the reason they cited, "Texas not having standing," means a different party needs to file, like Trump's legal team, and/or it's too early for this type of lawsuit from a legal perspective.
As for the court's actions, they wanted to see what arguments both sides had (And display them to everyone), but they didn't actually say anything about the arguments of either side so they haven't actually ruled out hearing this if it comes from the correct people at the correct time.
SCOTUS turns out to be completely unnecessary. After the report on foreign interference in the election was released, there were mass arrests and property seizures.
In light of this, congress opted to throw out pretty much every biden vote, and Trump won.
That said, thanks to the "vaccine" Thomas and Alito have become immortal.
Isn't that kinda what they did to him on daca and a few other things. "Were telling you no, but in our judgment we will kind of tell you how to fix it so we can vote yes"
I honestly wouldn't hear the case as a freshman Justice either. How state conduct their election activity is no business of another state. Pennsylvania had a year to figure it out and they didn't and nobody said shit until now because now there purported election fraud.
Bring me the election fraud case via the proper channels then I'll rule on it fairly. Otherwise I don't want to be on the hook for setting some shenanigan precedent that I KNOW people will fucking regret when it gets abused later.
I don't imagine the SCOTUS taking it if the situation was reversed and it's Biden trying to challenge election result in the same manner.
It does seem odd that alito jumped in pa shit and said keep votes separate, they didn't do that, and then now throw this lawsuit out... I had this "I'm sorry you must ask the right questions" irobot shit.
I mostly agree, except it seems pretty clear that these states violated their own laws and the constitutional statute that says only legislators can change the election process.
The people must vote to implement mail-in ballots and they did not. Therefore, mail-in ballots were illegal.
If Biden wanted to challenge the election this way, he wouldn’t have standing if he didn’t provide evidence that these states conducted their elections specifically violating constitutional law.
Isn’t it their business when a state(s) conducts their election activity unconstitutionally for a federal election, changing the outcome of said election and electing the unfavorable candidate that they acted unconstitutionally in favor of (that then becomes the commander in chief for all 50 states)....? Isn’t this EVERYONE’S business...?
As it stands now it's unconstitutional for a state to go after another state because of how they conduct state issue, regardless of misbehaviour.
It'd be like State A sueing State B on their tax rate. You either have laws in this country or you think the other side cheated within the law then you just have to cheat better or grab your gun.
This, the Executive Order, and the President of the Senate. This is far from over. Thanks for enabling a good, deep breath. But still going to oil my magazines, people always forget to maintain their magazines...
But you treat me the same with my skeptical talk too. Fuck no am i gonna sit down to some hot head dipshit that jumps to 60 at a mere thought and resorts right to insult. You introduce that shit, and then you demand i dont reciprocate? Fuck off with your ignorant bullshit.
But can we celebrate Christmas first, and also new year, but by then lets wait and see who is inaugurated. Yea after that's I'll get off my chair. Also, do I get free guns for my pals too? They have no clue how to use one but figure playing COD helps.
Yes, Definitely on to something here. There are already hints about refiling so that standing is corrected.
Sounds almost like a business conference call
TLDR: They said exactly what they meant, and meant exactly what they said. Nothing more and nothing less.
I'm no lawyer, but my interpretation is that it's hidden behind legal speak and some can be inferred by their actions before the dismissal. Basically the reason they cited, "Texas not having standing," means a different party needs to file, like Trump's legal team, and/or it's too early for this type of lawsuit from a legal perspective.
As for the court's actions, they wanted to see what arguments both sides had (And display them to everyone), but they didn't actually say anything about the arguments of either side so they haven't actually ruled out hearing this if it comes from the correct people at the correct time.
https://www (dot) brighteon (dot)com/ channels/ hrreport
Probably all the hope porn getting circle-jerked here and on 4chan.
Or the doom porn on here by people that have no clue about the legal system, but fancy themselves experts.
I'm from the future.
SCOTUS turns out to be completely unnecessary. After the report on foreign interference in the election was released, there were mass arrests and property seizures.
In light of this, congress opted to throw out pretty much every biden vote, and Trump won.
That said, thanks to the "vaccine" Thomas and Alito have become immortal.
do they mass produce this vac? or does the regular affect just them in that way?
It's only available to people who have killed at least 10,000 chicoms or saved 10,000 babies from abortion. They did both.
I think Alito's power armor is pretty sweet, but right now Thomas' suit is probably more popular.
https://thedonald.win/p/11QRalO9J3/hey-pedes-hear-me-out-my-little-/
Isn't that kinda what they did to him on daca and a few other things. "Were telling you no, but in our judgment we will kind of tell you how to fix it so we can vote yes"
I honestly wouldn't hear the case as a freshman Justice either. How state conduct their election activity is no business of another state. Pennsylvania had a year to figure it out and they didn't and nobody said shit until now because now there purported election fraud.
Bring me the election fraud case via the proper channels then I'll rule on it fairly. Otherwise I don't want to be on the hook for setting some shenanigan precedent that I KNOW people will fucking regret when it gets abused later.
I don't imagine the SCOTUS taking it if the situation was reversed and it's Biden trying to challenge election result in the same manner.
It does seem odd that alito jumped in pa shit and said keep votes separate, they didn't do that, and then now throw this lawsuit out... I had this "I'm sorry you must ask the right questions" irobot shit.
Ha, nice one!
I mostly agree, except it seems pretty clear that these states violated their own laws and the constitutional statute that says only legislators can change the election process.
The people must vote to implement mail-in ballots and they did not. Therefore, mail-in ballots were illegal.
If Biden wanted to challenge the election this way, he wouldn’t have standing if he didn’t provide evidence that these states conducted their elections specifically violating constitutional law.
Isn’t it their business when a state(s) conducts their election activity unconstitutionally for a federal election, changing the outcome of said election and electing the unfavorable candidate that they acted unconstitutionally in favor of (that then becomes the commander in chief for all 50 states)....? Isn’t this EVERYONE’S business...?
Then pass a federal law about election guideline.
As it stands now it's unconstitutional for a state to go after another state because of how they conduct state issue, regardless of misbehaviour.
It'd be like State A sueing State B on their tax rate. You either have laws in this country or you think the other side cheated within the law then you just have to cheat better or grab your gun.
Hope this is true.
This, the Executive Order, and the President of the Senate. This is far from over. Thanks for enabling a good, deep breath. But still going to oil my magazines, people always forget to maintain their magazines...
Guns and ammo already clean. CCW in hand. Stand Your Ground state. Standing ready, fren.
guys, not every setback is some tactical 4D chess move. These justices betrayed our country. That's it.
Can SCOTUS legally put something like:
"You need to refile specifically with Trump as plaintiff"
In a response?
I am sacred... thank you very much
do you know what sacred means?......... wait did you mean SCARED?
Yeah cool your larping jets tom cruize
BHAHA, bruh you're why they laugh at us
yeah ill fucking get outta the way for your McNamara Moronic ass and let you make decent fodder for me.
But you treat me the same with my skeptical talk too. Fuck no am i gonna sit down to some hot head dipshit that jumps to 60 at a mere thought and resorts right to insult. You introduce that shit, and then you demand i dont reciprocate? Fuck off with your ignorant bullshit.
But can we celebrate Christmas first, and also new year, but by then lets wait and see who is inaugurated. Yea after that's I'll get off my chair. Also, do I get free guns for my pals too? They have no clue how to use one but figure playing COD helps.
Actually, how do they socialize? Are they allowed to meet outside of... work, etc? Can they even plan something like this behind the scenes?
Nah. Give us the hard stuff, we can take it. They folded.
yeah, but Trump's ability to warp speed goes up to 11... see? right there on the knob. other knobs only go up to 10
Why doesn't it just go to 10 but that 10 be a just a little faster?
Because 11 is more than 10.
yeah but.... no this is a Trump Knob.... goes up to 11
Shouldn't be allowed to down vote Spinal Tap.
Stop dooming with this pasta. Either support the cause or go somewhere else
Why'd you delete your comment then?
Then why did they throw out Pennsylvania as well?
They didn’t
PA case is still pending.
One was thrown out. There are multiple.
4 days until electors, running out of time.
Can swap out electors after the vote when congress confirms in January.