3512
Comments (183)
sorted by:
278
jdog 278 points ago +281 / -3

Kavanaugh shouldn't have done it for Trump or his supporters. Hf should have done it because it was the right thing to do.

130
deleted 130 points ago +131 / -1
43
SoldierofKek 43 points ago +44 / -1

Same here dude. I'm ready to give some of these traitors blood eagles

21
Numaeus 21 points ago +22 / -1

Smart money says none of them enter Valhalla.

3
ModernKnight 3 points ago +3 / -0

They're going someplace much... warmer.

24
deleted 24 points ago +24 / -0
4
Kingoftheroad 4 points ago +4 / -0

And DACA

9
Chopblock 9 points ago +9 / -0

When communists are midway through accomplishing a coup, YOU DON’T SIT AROUND FINDING QUIBBLING EXCUSES NOT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU AND FOUR FRIENDS CAN CONTROL THE ACTIONS OF ONE CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

There are handicapped, penniless housewifes in Boca Raton who have done more to fight for this country than these worthless Washington D.C. cucks! May they burn in Hell for this, one of history’s greatest acts of cowardice!

8
Brendancs0 8 points ago +8 / -0

That’s exactly how I feel

4
oakkqs 4 points ago +4 / -0

I am a non violent person. I couldn’t even imagine killing another human being. The people in my imagination that has their head blown off JFK style is growing. The first one is a middle aged female. My thoughts are dark. My prayers are purposeful. 👆🏻🙏🏼

40
Chick-fill-eh 40 points ago +42 / -2

Do you hear the shills and blue hairs raving about how Trump stacked the court? How the SC is worthless? How his 3 justices are compromised?

No. One of the big good things about this event is now we have proof that these new justices are not Trump henchmen. Not that facts will matter to the TDS sufferers, but that's a redpill for those who are just starting to pay attention (and yes, somehow there's still people just waking up).

5
Lovepede 5 points ago +6 / -1

And the SC may rule differently in the same lawsuit if it's filed after Dec 21.

3
Tantalus4200 3 points ago +6 / -3

Exactly

These fucking Doomers think the SC was just gonna flip the election instantly

We need to know what the dominion machines audit proved, then shit will change

If it's undeniable proof that votes were changed, shit will really hit the fan

4
winsome 4 points ago +4 / -0

Right, we forget that there were plans in place before TX ever jumped into it.

-2
jamesfinmadison2 -2 points ago +4 / -6

Doomers like Trump? You sound like you have an inside track! Please tell us all when Trump is lieing and when he's telling us the truth, ok?

1
Tantalus4200 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sure, TX was never part of the plan

19
errydaktal 19 points ago +19 / -0

Something tells me they weren't lies, because what exactly is it the deep state have over him. If they were lies, maybe they were showing him what they can do.

21
The_Litehaus_Abides 21 points ago +22 / -1 (edited)

Remember when Democrats were threatening Kavanaugh with impeachment if they got power back? That was when he started deciding more in their favor. It didn't make sense but... it did.

They either got something on him or absolutely proved they could harm and/or kill his family and nobody would do a single damn thing to help him.

8
Electrocutioner 8 points ago +9 / -1

Agreed, they killed Scalia and no one did anything about it.

6
winsome 6 points ago +6 / -0

Scalia's fam just shut the door to any medical investigations.

7
day221 7 points ago +7 / -0

Then he's a traitor for accepting the nomination knowing he was compromised.

19
KARMAAACS 19 points ago +19 / -0

Exactly, it's not even about helping your buddy or the guy who put you there, it's just about following the Constitution and the law. I said it weeks ago, I don't trust SCOTUS and I was right. Like every establishment individual, you can't depend on them, they're compromised.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
5
Liberty_For_All 5 points ago +5 / -0

This is exactly right.

39
MikelovesTrump 39 points ago +64 / -25

People need to pull their panties out of their pussy cracks. What the SCOTUS did was legally sound. If they had allowed this case to move forward there would have been 100 more cases from the D party today. This was the wrong case, was only filed a few days ago and was a long shot.

The case that is important is the one that GEOTUS is bringing.

54
Burto_87 54 points ago +58 / -4

I fail to reconcile the statement that Texas has no standing because the state has no right unto another state when the defendant state violated federal law murking a federal election.

20
FreeTheFrog 20 points ago +22 / -2

It’s only because they haven’t suffered injury yet- the votes haven’t been cast yet. They can file again if all the states send their fraudulent electors

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
10
deleted 10 points ago +11 / -1
3
FORMERCHILDSTAR 3 points ago +4 / -1

Well, that is true. If the state legislatures reclaimed their constitutional authority they could nullify their election and the Supreme Court would have never entered the discussion.

5
deleted 5 points ago +6 / -1
6
deleted 6 points ago +7 / -1
1
acasper 1 point ago +2 / -1

Pennsylvania didn’t violate federal law. Texas didn’t allege that they violated federal law. Texas alleged that Pennsylvania broke their own constitution and did not allow the legislative branch to determine election procedures. Once electoral votes are cast the harm to Texas has been done. They haven’t been yet. No harm has been done (at least that’s the obvious argument). Additionally, even ruling in Texas v Pennsylvania could have had pretty serious side effects for state rights. There are a ton of cases pending with effectively the same merits but unquestionable standing.

19
basedBlumpkin [S] 19 points ago +22 / -3

This suit argued that the electors clause, which dictates only legislatures can change rules/procedures of a presidential election, of the constitution was violated. That's what this suit was. Saying "hurr durr Dems would have brought 100 cases" is bullshit.

-17
MikelovesTrump -17 points ago +5 / -22

Texas didn’t have standing. If the legislatures of those states file suit then the SCOTUS would hear that case. Alternatively GEOTUS can file a similar suit because he has standing.

18
Zuko_Epic 18 points ago +20 / -2

Wrong even if it was "legally" sound, standing was invented in the 1920s as a way for lawyers and judges to weasel their way out. I guarantee if this was Bush, they would have ruled 6-3 right then and there

11
basedBlumpkin [S] 11 points ago +14 / -3

Imagine if this was Obama with a 6-3 lib majority. Easy victory.

You're also right, "standing" was a completely invented thing by lib/progressive justices in the last century: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dfbd/14305d0a07a25975a0960c3f297eddd42367.pdf

4
zooty 4 points ago +5 / -1

legislators joined the case, Trump joined the case.

4
basedBlumpkin [S] 4 points ago +6 / -2

How does GEOTUS have standing when the concept of the case is the electors clause which states agree to as part of the union? He's not a state. It would be a completely different case at that point and it wouldn't be an original jurisdiction case either.

1
Worldtraveler0405 1 point ago +2 / -1

Good point. I also think this was an important "dry run", as in to show impartiality with the US Supreme Court when the real big cases of Rudy Giuliani in PA and else, like in MI come forward.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Oback_Barama 1 point ago +1 / -0

The thing is the legislatures of PA and GA filled amicis briefs with the Texas lawsuit. I would think those parties would have standing to sue their respective states.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
33
deleted 33 points ago +42 / -9
35
leatherbottom 35 points ago +38 / -3

Why do you believe that? He had a chance to make a ruling already and didn't.

24
deleted 24 points ago +30 / -6
38
basedBlumpkin [S] 38 points ago +40 / -2

all of Trump's judges voted against this suit. I'm thinking this is to protect their image so they aren't immediately attacked as shills for Trump when they DO rule in his favor

This is mental gymnastics.

25
deleted 25 points ago +26 / -1
20
basedBlumpkin [S] 20 points ago +22 / -2

Seriously. They called the guy a serial gang rapist but he's supposedly concerned about how a ruling will effect his image lmao

8
KARMAAACS 8 points ago +9 / -1

Likely he is too much of a coward to go through another controversy. Well then why the fuck are you there? You're put there to make decisions based on the law and the Constitution, you're there to make hard decisions that may very well be unpopular, but thats why you're there. IMO if you can't do that, why the hell are you still working? Thats like me working for Pizza Hut and being unable to make or deliver pizzas. Like why the fuck would I be there? I wouldn't!

22
deleted 22 points ago +25 / -3
10
CloakAndDagger 10 points ago +12 / -2

BASED!

2
ObamasLooseButthole 2 points ago +2 / -0

I mean, some of you are. The rest of us are calling a spade, a spade

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
WhoBuiltTheCagesJOOO 1 point ago +2 / -1

If Trump is to keep the POTUS, I imagine they are doing everything to mitigate conflict within our borders, Esper he larger cities.

Remember, our military, SoS, SpecOps, etc have deemed this a matter of National Security. But this isn’t traditional warfare, just as Flynn and many other ranking military have alluded to. This is a war of the mind and we’ve been in it the last decade at minimum.

Difference is, now the CCP can’t go on much longer with Trump at the head and they pulled at all the stops to bribe every politician they could. I have no more insight than anyone else but I feel like this has all been war-gamed out just as the Dems did to steal it.

We need to organize better. Why can’t we use this platform to do it? We need to show out in huge numbers on the weekends in every state that’s getting press from the fraud and pending litigation.

6
deleted 6 points ago +9 / -3
3
Dead_Sennacherib 3 points ago +4 / -1

It is true that this is a really critical time in our history. Somehow we need to exposed the cheating and make things right while making as many people as possible see things as fair. I know we all want to see a scorched earth outcome where the Dems are just blown away - but the reality is that at least 40% of the country falls in that camp.

4
FORMERCHILDSTAR 4 points ago +7 / -3

I agree with you. I don't buy the line we're being sold out by the Supreme Court, I believe there are other legal cases pending that yield fruit. Things have to be very precise at the supreme court, and even though the Texas case made sense, it might have been ham fisted from a legal perspective.

3
BloodyWolf 3 points ago +4 / -1

If this is all according to plan, why the anger from Trump?

0
FORMERCHILDSTAR 0 points ago +1 / -1

I never said this was all according to plan...what I'm saying is as long as there constitutional options for redress, anything is possible in terms of changing the current status of the election. Trump is not showing anger.

4
Mozart_K231 4 points ago +4 / -0

They did it to save their own asses under a Biden administration, so they weren’t impeached or had the courts immediately stacked. That was it.

1
Tylerlc22 1 point ago +1 / -0

They still will be anyway so dont hold your breathe. Whether its now or then, they will be scrutinized and insulted as trump hench men

9
sometimesme 9 points ago +13 / -4

you're think in terms of outcomes, not processes. you're saying "since kavanaugh didn't allow X to happen, then he is against X". but that's not true, especially when dealing with people whose job is to have principles.

as an example, if i ask an IRS agent if they can waive my penalties because it's the right thing to do, they'd say no. if i ask an IRS agent if they can waive my penalties because i'm seeking a first-time penalty abatement, they'd say "sure! here's your money back".

if you only took the first event and concluded "IRS agents don't want to give me my money back!!!!" you'd be wrong. you simply didn't ask them in a way that lets them follow the rules.

per this ruling in particular, it is debateable whether or not texas has actual standing, especially prior to the certification of the election. and apparently kavanaugh's understanding of the law says no texas does not have standing. that's fine. that doesn't mean he can't be convinced that fraud happened or anything else. it means in this particular avenue, his thinking lead him to a certain result. that is a good thing in a judge.

you don't want a judge who just rules for his "own side" in every situation, regardless of the soundness of the ruling.

3
Modernturnkey 3 points ago +10 / -7

You would find a way to justify why your wife cheated on you, wouldn't you?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
3
deleted 3 points ago +5 / -2
3
leatherbottom 3 points ago +6 / -3

I agree with your well thought out and articulate response. But I just think it's very plain that TX does have standing, as do all states. I don't understand how one can argue they don't, since they are directly affected by the election.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
0
Dead_Sennacherib 0 points ago +5 / -5

So much this. We want principled judges, not partisan judges. That means that sometimes they will come to a different conclusion than we would like them to.

-3
deleted -3 points ago +1 / -4
8
deleted 8 points ago +9 / -1
4
China4Biden 4 points ago +7 / -3

No, he won't. Kavanaugh is a cuck and a rapist.

CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD WAS RIGHT!!!!!

-18
deleted -18 points ago +3 / -21
19
deleted 19 points ago +21 / -2
-13
deleted -13 points ago +2 / -15
13
deleted 13 points ago +16 / -3
-15
deleted -15 points ago +3 / -18
3
deleted 3 points ago +6 / -3
-3
deleted -3 points ago +2 / -5
1
IntrepidBurger 1 point ago +3 / -2

You cucks need to shape your propaganda better. We have access to the correct information on this site, your crap talking points don't fly. Try being more creative.

Those "50 suits" were all citizen filings. Trump has not had many cases submitted, about 4-5 now. None have been heard on merits yet.

4
grassshrimp 4 points ago +6 / -2

18 day old troll account. Keep on tryin.

2
FTR22 2 points ago +3 / -1

Bottom line, what do you BELIEVE. Your friends sound like MSM mind controlled sheeple, I have friends like that, well, we don't converse much these days because I will end up calling them idiots.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
FORMERCHILDSTAR 2 points ago +3 / -1

You're liberal friends are retards, just like my ever shrinking number of liberal friends are retards.

2
PolishBaldEagle 2 points ago +3 / -1

If you’re not standing for Trump and trust in the process than maybe you should get off here and continue to listen to your commie liberal friends! You’re liberal friends get their “facts” from their first result on Google or what CNN tells them... the tip of the iceberg and now they’re “RESEARCH” and “FACTS” preachers.

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
21
Spongebob1808 21 points ago +21 / -0

Now the SC will take each state, one by one...and they will dismiss each one because one state won’t change the outcome...watch.

6
FORMERCHILDSTAR 6 points ago +6 / -0

Lol...oh lord, that might be true...ha...but even if that did happen thr state legislatures could still nullify their elections if they wanted.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
13
NYC_4_Trump 13 points ago +15 / -2

I’ve thought about it. My initial reaction was “the SC pussied out.” But, I’ve come around on it.

Some legal background:

  • You don’t want to have the case heard, and then ruled against because of this technical issue of standing. That would actually give guys like Roberts a way out of ruling on the merits.

  • If you did that, you would put all your eggs in this basket, burn the clock, and be devastated with the result.

8
deleted 8 points ago +9 / -1
2
Worldtraveler0405 2 points ago +3 / -1

Absolutely! Rudy Giuliani is back in the game, stronger and healthier than ever after REGENERON hopefully. XD Many more important lawsuits coming in front of the Supreme Court .... and important to show impartiality with the people once the hammer is dropped.

-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2
1
conservativerants 1 point ago +1 / -0

this needs to be higher and it's something I was saying last night.

I think people will be surprised how the court votes when a suit that *does *have standing finally comes before them.

12
deleted 12 points ago +19 / -7
21
IntrepidBurger 21 points ago +21 / -0

Thomas and Alito didn't reject. That's some misinformation my friend.

It was denied hearing based on lack of standing 7-2.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Kutastha 1 point ago +3 / -2

You're correct, except it was 9-0. 2 of them made comments.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
4
IntrepidBurger 4 points ago +4 / -0

Thomas did not decline to hear the case. His words were clearly that the SC does not have authority to deny cases where they have original jurisdiction. Alito agreed with this dissent.

Don't spread misinfo.

3
42rle 3 points ago +3 / -0

You are correct. I dont know why i thought Thomas voted the other way. I will remove my original post

15
deleted 15 points ago +16 / -1
17
FreeTheFrog 17 points ago +19 / -2

They didn’t reject it based on merit. It was a premature lawsuit in nature. Texas and the other states haven’t suffered injury yet as the electoral votes haven’t been cast yet. So other states, the battleground states can use that argument and Trump can use that argument because they have and are suffering injury. Alito and Thomas plainly stated that it needs to be tweaked and then refilled with the district courts first.

6
FORMERCHILDSTAR 6 points ago +7 / -1

Yes, this is how I read it. Alito and Thomas said the doors open, just pull instead of push. And yes, the battleground states would have absolute standing because their legislatures constitutional authority was usurped by the other two branches of government.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
9
ravonaf 9 points ago +9 / -0 (edited)

Do these Judges feel no shame? Seriously. I just don't understand that mindset. To have no sacred honor. To take an oath and shit on it. They backstabbed the very man who gave them the chance to serve their nation. These people must be sociopaths. ABC claims she is a devout Catholic. Yet breaks her oath the very first chance she gets. Despicable.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
0
basedBlumpkin [S] 0 points ago +4 / -4

otherwise you become like them.

Constantly winning, getting everything they want, and controlling the MSM, Big Tech, the courts and elections? Doesn't sound so bad.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
4
Turnerscreek 4 points ago +5 / -1

He’s a drunk cuck

3
Magastein143 3 points ago +3 / -0

I wonder what made Kavanaugh feel more shame in front of his daughters..... being called a gang rapist or failing to uphold the constitution of the USA and bending to those that called him a gang rapist?

3
zooty 3 points ago +3 / -0

“Gratitude is a euphemism for resentment.”

3
Azrael1776 3 points ago +3 / -0

They're all traitors the whole fucking lot of them. We all know none of these treasonous fucks can be trusted. That's why we love Trump he was never in government until he was president.

It will play out, our day will come.

3
deleted 3 points ago +5 / -2
3
brownguy 3 points ago +3 / -0

Just my opinion but Kavanaugh shouldn't rule in our favor because of what we've done for him. He should have ruled in our favor because Texas was completely in the right. He wouldn't have been doing us a "solid", he would have been abiding by our great constitution.

P.S. I get that that curly haired girl with the big boobs is on our side, but I'm not the biggest fan.

3
Mozart_K231 3 points ago +3 / -0

Damn right. And I’m sick of this, “it’s not the right case,” or, “the wording was x or y,” shit.

Your ultimate job, regardless of legislative, executive, or judicial branch, is to save the damn republic. You do it any way you can. You make the shitty case work.

3
jamesfinmadison2 3 points ago +3 / -0

Brett did worse then turn his back on Trump and us, he turned his back on the US Constitution.

The other states have standing when one or more states violate the states compact that is the US Constitution.

3
deleted 3 points ago +5 / -2
3
Swellingsuperman 3 points ago +3 / -0

Simple. Brett fears the left more.

2
MaxineWaters4Prez 2 points ago +2 / -0

After what they put him through. Shame on him.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
Hypnadancedotcom 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sure does make him more believable should he side in future cases, no?

2
Briben 2 points ago +2 / -0

It was an easy dodge and one every lawyer saw coming. A state claiming injury by another state not enforcing its voting laws was always a stretch. The real party injured is the president and he can file in district court for the same relief in each of the contested states, if he has not already done so. I see no way the Court can dodge that case once it comes up to them.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
Seenev 2 points ago +2 / -0

We didn't believe the accusations of rape... And then he raped us all.

2
bekkiluvsit 2 points ago +2 / -0

The entire High Court will get a second, maybe more, chance to redeem themselves. As an attorney, I believe they held true to the constitution on standing - it was a 50/50 call, and the true constitutionalists called Texas' bluff. However, the President and the Legislators of the various states are the true Plaintiffs, they suffered injury directly (as opposed to indirect injury claimed by Texas). We shall see if Kavanaugh and the rest are true constitutionalists when they get to decide these cases on the merits of the case (the fraud) rather that ruling on these technicalities. HOLD THE LINE, PEDES - YOUR PRESIDENT ISN'T QUITTING, AND NEITHER SHOULD WE!

2
ryanking 2 points ago +3 / -1

What’s going on in the courts is a show, a distraction. Calm down.

1
txladyvoter 1 point ago +1 / -0

and at Christmas

1
systemsplanet 1 point ago +1 / -0

Should not be a surprise.

Kavanaugh covered for Killery for the Vice Foster murder.

Trump only hires deep state players

1
Mediumphone 1 point ago +1 / -0

I dont like this line of thinking. Corrupt politicians are the ones that want others to do them favors in exchange for positions. Trump appointed these justices since they are qualified. Nothing more. We should NOT be calling for more corruption.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
nomoreprinkles 1 point ago +1 / -0

Never give a coward power. He wouldn't know what to do with it.

1
Alienus 1 point ago +1 / -0

Life is never this simple, why Brett did what he did, we don't yet know.

1
j4ckp0t 1 point ago +1 / -0

WAR, what is it good for, absolutely everything.

1
Iforgetpassword 1 point ago +1 / -0

They basically said a state cant sue another states for violating constitution regarding election. you dont need to be a lawyer to know it's bullshit

1
Phouglas 1 point ago +1 / -0

Agreed, Fuck you Brett Kavanaugh

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
jiujiujiu 1 point ago +1 / -0

The entire scotus ruled against Texas. Auto and Thomas just wanted to hear the argument and not rule on it.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Phantomblk 1 point ago +2 / -1

The courts are frauds. Burn it all down and rebuild America more free.

1
Pat_Riot45 1 point ago +1 / -0

Here is something I've been thinking about. The Texas case/Trump is surrounded by some of the smartest lawyers probably in the nation. The basis of the SC ruling isn't some obscure law that none of these guys knew about.

Your telling me that, out of ALL of the ULTRA qualified lawyers, they FORGOT about the whole "State did not suffer so can't bring forth" thing? I don't buy that shit for a second. There is absolutely no way this many individuals signed on while completely being unaware of what was to come at the SC. There is no way that they rallied this many states/people just to have an "oopsie, forgot about that part" This to me, feels like straight optics.

I have no idea why they went along with this Texas case - Could be to rally support or to really see whos with them. But again, some of the nations smartest lawyers didn't get their case thrown out due to an "oopsie"

-1
basedBlumpkin [S] -1 points ago +1 / -2

Because that was merely the interpretation used so they could punt the case. When certain states abide to the electors clause and certain states don't of course states suffer.

1
winsome 1 point ago +1 / -0

Maybe some day we can imprison the people that threatened to cut their children up into pieces and mail them all over the country.

1
winsome 1 point ago +1 / -0

Aren't there any judges to nominate that have no family to threaten?

1
Westiemom3 1 point ago +1 / -0

Asswipe

1
Tylerlc22 1 point ago +1 / -0

We should be the ones outside of his, and every justices house, now. Armed and organized.

1
ltpayne 1 point ago +1 / -0

shoot, even if Kavachoppenstien would have ruled for it - that would be 3 to 9. I do like Justice Thomas' ruling tho. This guy is badass!

We have to get something better. The TX suit sounded brilliant but I also heard that is was an unusual move. So re-calibrate and make it happen. The warrior only truly loses when he gives up and quits.

TRUMP is NOT GIVING UP ON US - WE SHOULD NOT GIVE UP ON HIM!

1
Bequeathed_Nugs 1 point ago +1 / -0

Eventually if no one does anything, it’s going to be too late for anyone to do anything. My ancestors are rolling in their graves watching Americans idly standing by as our republic is trampled. Someone with some fucking balls and experience in organizing a fucking fight get us there please for the love of god.

1
Mintap 1 point ago +1 / -0

SCOTUS news to be pro-Constitution, not pro-Trump. Of course Trump won this election and SCOTUS in defending the Constitution will have to reject the attempted steal.

1
CorruptAdamShiff 1 point ago +1 / -0

Roberts probably made a deal with biden team that they won't pack the courts if they vote it down.