5576
Comments (262)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
46
Thekraken 46 points ago +47 / -1

Hurry up and kick The cas so we can get on with it

23
Notmypresidentelect 23 points ago +23 / -0

Hopefully nobody dooms over this ruling. It's apparent from the get go this is one of those "we have to present this so we can move up the totem pole" cases .

12
camfrog 12 points ago +13 / -1

I think the Supreme Court has made up their mind. I don’t have high hopes for a reversal . Jail time for those who orchestrated the fraud would be nice though.

1
EtTuRINOs 1 point ago +1 / -0

The court system is so insanely stupid with the standing position for this. Sue early?? "Well, there's no victim yet so too bad." Sue later?? "Well, why didn't you make a fuss before??? While this seems like a potential breach of election security we're not going to reverse an election because of this" Sue as an indirect party? "tHe eLeCtIoN dIsPuTe dIdN't iNvoLvE yOu"... but the outcome does you dimwits! But of course, "yOuRe nOt aN iNjuReD pArTy"

I get why those may exist in other circumstances, but holy shit... not in elections where time is essential. And courts fucking know this, it's why restraining orders can be obtained even if there is yet to be a criminal action and a victim.

-4
Grief -4 points ago +5 / -9

There is nothing to move up to anymore. The Supreme Court ruled that no one has standing to challenge fraud at the state level. States are allowed to run themselves however they want. The SCOTUS redefined states rights.

9
matto 9 points ago +9 / -0

That's not what SCOTUS said.

1
Grief 1 point ago +4 / -3

Apparently you haven't been paying attention. They threw the most important case in American history out on the idea of "standing" that has barely been around for 100 years. They spoke VOLUMES last night. If a State doesn't have standing to challenge another state canceling their vote on the basis of the electoral clause then no one does.

3
RussianAgent13 3 points ago +3 / -0

Nope. No ruling was made nor precedent set.

-1
Grief -1 points ago +1 / -2

The precedent was set that they won't be taking election fraud cases because states don't have standing to protect their electoral votes against fraud.

-22
Andy0202 -22 points ago +4 / -26

Agreed. But why wait? Let's make an example out of somebody. I am very sure they will get the "message."

20
Election_Quotes 20 points ago +22 / -2

Hey there new account advocating for random acts of violence. Glowie or Chinese Commie? Can’t decide, but either way... deported

0
Andy0202 0 points ago +5 / -5

Whichever is the best result. Don't know about Glowie but sure know about the commie's shit. Used to live in one.

7
Wtf_socialismreally 7 points ago +7 / -0

Glowie is referencing government entities LARPing to try and get other people involved to shut things down.

Retards call anyone frustrated enough glowies because they think it sounds cool and morally authoritative.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
Andy0202 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeap, keep talking, then all of us will be DEPORTED into a "re-education" camp.