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.
You're free to doom all you want, but no need to lie. No such precedent was set. The rejection they made yesterday doesn't set precedent. It doesn't tell us what they believe regarding fraud, or how they will treat the other cases from other plaintiffs.
or how they will treat the other cases from other plaintiffs.
It treats a state vs. state matter on elections as not a federal court issue, which is absurd.
To treat Trump as the only affected party of election fraud is another spit in the face of citizens. Or, in the matter of this case, illegal election changes. Just like this brave kid here speaking out about what he saw, it shouldn't matter what political party you belong to when fighting against election fraud.
SCOTUS has now proven twice that they want to avoid doing anything at all costs. The POTUS lawsuit over PA election changes was already avoided by John Roberts. What makes you think he'll care if it's filed again, post election??
IF they even look at this same case but filed by Trump the result will be: "Well you may be right, but the only recourse will be for future elections since your argument, while against state actions, doesn't give us leeway to do anything about people's votes."
edit: Wasn't this the same SCOTUS (barring ACB's replacement of RBG) that ruled that Trump didn't have the right to overturn DACA, simply because they didn't like his position on why he was doing it?? Even though it was fully within his power as POTUS?!?!?! Ya... I really trust this court isn't going to apply the same logic for flipping a fucking election... ya, riiiiiiiight.
I don't really disagree, it's pretty ridiculous. I just don't think it means they won't take the other cases. Your guess is as good as anyone's. But they didn't reject the PA case, they only rejected immediate injunctive relief. The other cases are in other districts and can be pulled in by other judges.
With DACA wasn't it because of a legal technicality that Obama and his snake legal team put into the EO? It was probably judicial overreach and POTUS should have ignored.
You're confusing actual legal precedent and them sending a message to everyone that they won't touch election cases. They could have easily taken that case if they wanted and it was the strongest legal case we had. They chose to throw it out.
That's you confusing the terms mate. If you're a doomer you'll read whatever message into that you want. I don't like their decision, but I think they will take another case with standing very soon. Only if that fails will it be time for military intervention. GEOTUS has this either way.
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.
You're free to doom all you want, but no need to lie. No such precedent was set. The rejection they made yesterday doesn't set precedent. It doesn't tell us what they believe regarding fraud, or how they will treat the other cases from other plaintiffs.
It treats a state vs. state matter on elections as not a federal court issue, which is absurd.
To treat Trump as the only affected party of election fraud is another spit in the face of citizens. Or, in the matter of this case, illegal election changes. Just like this brave kid here speaking out about what he saw, it shouldn't matter what political party you belong to when fighting against election fraud.
SCOTUS has now proven twice that they want to avoid doing anything at all costs. The POTUS lawsuit over PA election changes was already avoided by John Roberts. What makes you think he'll care if it's filed again, post election??
IF they even look at this same case but filed by Trump the result will be: "Well you may be right, but the only recourse will be for future elections since your argument, while against state actions, doesn't give us leeway to do anything about people's votes."
edit: Wasn't this the same SCOTUS (barring ACB's replacement of RBG) that ruled that Trump didn't have the right to overturn DACA, simply because they didn't like his position on why he was doing it?? Even though it was fully within his power as POTUS?!?!?! Ya... I really trust this court isn't going to apply the same logic for flipping a fucking election... ya, riiiiiiiight.
I don't really disagree, it's pretty ridiculous. I just don't think it means they won't take the other cases. Your guess is as good as anyone's. But they didn't reject the PA case, they only rejected immediate injunctive relief. The other cases are in other districts and can be pulled in by other judges.
With DACA wasn't it because of a legal technicality that Obama and his snake legal team put into the EO? It was probably judicial overreach and POTUS should have ignored.
You're confusing actual legal precedent and them sending a message to everyone that they won't touch election cases. They could have easily taken that case if they wanted and it was the strongest legal case we had. They chose to throw it out.
That's you confusing the terms mate. If you're a doomer you'll read whatever message into that you want. I don't like their decision, but I think they will take another case with standing very soon. Only if that fails will it be time for military intervention. GEOTUS has this either way.