I am saying this only because they are appointed by trump. Failing 3 out of 3? My president is better than this. Hear me out.The texas lawsuit does not contain any arguments concerning frauds. Wouldn't our case be stronger with lawsuits containing evidences of frauds? We could achieve full audit and throw out fake votes with trump lawyers' cases, and win straight up without risking it to state legislature with rinos. They could be faking "neutrality" in dems voter's eye now, be to more convincing when it really matters.
Comments (15)
sorted by:
scotus has to be neutral in theory(and of course it is not in reality), so they could be saving the biggest punch when it really matter. Case with unconstitutional practice+ fraud is stronger than case with unconstitutional practice alone
No. Unconstitutional is stronger than fraud because Fraud is hard to prove.
This isn't even about the practice of law, but about loyalty. Had Trump's trump card been the SCOTUS, he would be dead - literally and figuratively.
We have overwhelming proof. Not hard as long as they are not democrat judges
We have overwhelming proof of IMPROPRIETY, not fraud.
We also have overwhelming proof of INTERFERENCE, not fraud.
Fraud is -VERY- hard to prove even if it is obvious. The laws for fraud have very high and stupid standards.
Again, this is about being a loyal person. Trump is hugely disappointed that these justices won't even HEAR the merits.